Dependent Children in Washington State: Case Timeliness ...Dependent Children in Washington State: Case Timeliness and Outcomes 2015 Annual Report Produced by the Washington State

Dependent Children in Washington State: Case Timeliness and Outcomes

2015 Annual Report

Washington State Center for Court Research

Dependent Children in Washington State:Case Timeliness and Outcomes2015 Annual Report

Produced by the Washington State Center for Court Research

Dr. Carl McCurley, ManagerMatt Orme, Senior Research AssociateCindy Bricker, Senior Court Program AnalystJanet Skreen, Court Association CoordinatorRachael Sanford, Research Administrative Assistant

Administrative Office of the CourtsWashington State Center for Court ResearchPO Box 41170Olympia, WA [email protected]

Other staff contributors: Wei WangOther external contributors: Center for Children and Youth Justice, DSHS Children’s Administration, University of Washington Court Improvement Training Academy, and DSHS Research and Data Analysis.

Photos: The images used on the cover and throughout this report are of models and are used for illustrative purposes only.

Recommended Citation:Orme, M., McCurley, C., Bricker, C., Skreen, J., Sanford, R., Wang, W. (2016) Dependent Children in Washington State: Case Timeliness and Outcomes, 2015 Annual Report. Olympia, WA: Center for Court Research, Administrative Office of the Courts.

This page is intentionally left blank.

Table of ConTenTSInTRoduCTIon & oveRvIeW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A Commitment to Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Interactive Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Accountability, Transparency, Responsivity, & Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Case Volume and Court Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Dependency and Filing Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Goals and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

objeCTIveS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Objective 1: Fact-Finding within 75 Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Objective 2: Review Hearings every Six Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Objective 3: Permanency Planning Hearing within 12 Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Objective 4: Permanency Achieved before 15 Months of Out-of-Home Care . . . . . . . . . . . 15Objective 5: Termination of Parental Rights Petition Filed within 15 Months of Out-of-Home Care18Objective 6: Adoption Completed within Six Months of Termination Order . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

PRoCeSS To ouTCoMeS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

MulTI SYSTeM YouTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

PRogRaMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Court Improvement Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Continuous Quality Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Court Improvement Training Academy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Early Engagement Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Young Children in Dependency Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Establishing Biological Paternity Early Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Family Team Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Fathers Matter Outreach Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Parents for Parents Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Parents Representation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Shared Planning Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Local Initiatives to Improve Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Family Dependency Treatment Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Family and Juvenile Court Improvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Collaboration with Other Child Welfare Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51IV-E Waiver and Family Assessment Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Children’s Representation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52External Permanency CQI Workgroup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52The Commission on Children in Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Education Improvement Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Extended Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Foster Youth and Alumni Leadership Summit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Unaccompanied Minors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

CHIldRen’S adMInISTRaTIon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

CHIld RePReSenTaTIon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

CloSIng THougHTS & ReCoMMendaTIonS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

aPPendICeS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Performance of the FJCIP Courts on Dependency Timeliness Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Statewide Demographic Characteristics of Children in Dependency Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . B County Level Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C Performance Measures Outcomes & Demographics Dependency Filings & Re-Dependency

Adams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2Asotin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6Benton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-10Chelan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-14Clallam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-18Clark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-22Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-26Cowlitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-30Douglas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-34Ferry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-38Franklin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-42Garfield. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-46Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-50Grays Harbor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-54Island. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-58Jefferson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-62King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-66Kitsap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-70Kittitas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-74Klickitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-78Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-82Lincoln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-86Mason . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-90Okanogan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-94Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-98Pend Oreille . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-102Pierce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-106San Juan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-110Skagit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-114Skamania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-118Snohomish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-122Spokane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-126Stevens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-130Thurston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-134

Wahkiakum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-138Walla Walla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-142Whatcom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-146Whitman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-150Yakima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-154


| 1 |

familyoverview

multi-system youth

engagementperformance measures legislature

dependencypartnerships

policy

improvementdevelopment

analysis

objectives

collaboration

WSCCR

commitment

children data

case processing

programs

AGO

CAgoals

research

appendices

In the ensuing years since the legislature first mandated the annual Timeliness of Dependency Case Processing Report in 2007, the Washington State Center for Court Research (WSCCR) at the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has strived to improve and increase information for legislators as they craft Washington’s dependency laws, always with the goal of improving outcomes for children in the dependency system. With this report, Children’s Administration (Children’s) and other child welfare system partners are better able to track their progress in meeting the performance measures that assist in resolving challenges faced by those who are involved in or working in the child welfare system.

These performance measures are tracked through eight case-processing objectives that were identified based on federal and state guidelines and are consistent with those suggested by the American Bar Association, the National Center for State Courts, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The timeline created for case processing aims for:

1. Fact-finding hearing within 75 days;2. First review hearing within six months;3. First permanency planning hearing within 12 months;4. Subsequent permanency planning hearings every 12 months;5. Permanency achieved before 15 months of out-of-home care;6. Termination of parental rights petition filed within 15 months of out-of-home care;7. Case tracking from dependency filing to legally free status; and8. Adoption completed within six months of the termination order.

For an explanation of these data elements, see the Objectives section beginning at page 7. For each statewide measure, data is presented on the percentage of cases achieving the statutory goal and the median length of time needed to reach that goal. This data is also provided at the individual county level in Appendix C.

reunification

stakeholders

trends

timeliness

filings

InTRODuCTIOn &OveRvIeW

introduction

| 2 |

This edition of the report is the result of years of consultation and collaboration with contributing authors, the courts, and child welfare partners. WSCCR remains committed to providing the courts and the legislature with accurate and useful information. This year’s edition includes reporting on cases that have seen another dependency filed after a prior one was dismissed. Further refinements on reporting outcomes for children in dependency cases are also included.

Timeliness of case processing remains important, as it ties directly to positive outcomes for children. This report strives to also reach deeper into the system by reporting on components that need to be measured, such as delivery of services intended to improve family functioning. In years past, focus centered on the traditional factors of permanency, safety, and well-being, with much attention now being paid to the latter, including education stability and progress, physical and mental health, placement of children together, and improved safe visits with parents and family members. WSCCR urges all system partners to address how to better perform our work so the system positively impacts children and families.

Improvements continue to be made on the Interactive Dependency Timeliness Report (IDTR), a web-based application, housed securely on an internal server at the AOC. The IDTR nimbly addresses the need for frequent and robust feedback to the field. Rich information is accessible to authorized users for assessment of each county’s processes and progress. Data filter criteria and level of detail may be selected to guide users’ view of the data across the spectrum, from broad state-to-county or county-to-county comparisons to case-specific information.

Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) is a cornerstone of the work behind this report. Improvements to the data exchange schedule between the AOC and Children’s allow for more frequent updates to the interactive reports, supplying users with information needed to rapidly identify trends and areas needing attention. The IDTR promotes CQI by giving courts the ability to see, in nearly real time, how they are performing in comparison to other counties in the state, and look at problematic cases to see what is needed to get the cases back on track.

Improved and enhanced training on targeted issues is made possible by the IDTR. Through continual and expanding cooperation from Children’s, quality assurance teams, county clerks, Family and Juvenile Court Improvement Program (FJCIP) coordinators, and the Court Improvement Training Academy’s Tables of Ten, the IDTR informs training efforts, providing the needed data to more accurately assess training needs and improve outcomes for children and families. The collaboration and cooperation of these partners improves CQI, a key element of child welfare efforts. (For information on Tables of Ten, see page 39.)

A commitment to improvement

interactive reports

| 3 |

Even with the modest improvements in Washington’s fiscal environment, significant challenges remain in securing adequate funding for courts and the child welfare system. Yet, system partners remain resolved to engage in their work with accountability, transparency, responsivity, and improvement in all areas. This shared commitment to innovative dependency-related programs has not only been sustained, but expanded. In the face of systems that are underfunded and operating under significant budget reductions, child welfare partners must be vigilant in accountability for their critical work improving children’s lives. This report is one measure of that accountability, as WSCCR remains dedicated to growing this report in depth and scope. As this report shows, substantial improvements in case processing measures have been made over recent years, and all child welfare partners know there is much room for further improvement. WSCCR hopes that as the report highlights past improvements and spotlights areas for growth, the State will reenergize its efforts and fiscal attention to the needs of families in the child welfare system to make progressive and meaningful improvements in outcomes for those families.

The 2015 Annual Report contains:

• Measures of statewide trends in dependency and termination filings • Statewide and county-level indicators of the achievement of the performance measures • Placement exit and federal permanency outcome indicators • Subsequent dependency filings after documented dismissal • Child demographic breakouts • Analysis of policy and program trends that affect process and outcomes for children involved in dependency cases • Recommendations for system reform

This annual report reflects all of the dependency and termination cases that were filed in Washington’s courts from January 2000 through December 2015. Court records from the AOC’s Superior Court Management and Information System (SCOMIS) were matched with information from Children’s FamLink system. Information relevant to each of the performance measures represents a subset of these matched cases that were documented before January 1, 2016.

Accountability, transparency, responsivity, & improvement

| 4 |

overviewcase volume and court Performance • A total of 4,866 dependency cases were filed in Washington’s courts in 2015, a modest drop from 2014. In 2015, termination filings dropped by 12% to 1,798.

• Time to fact-finding dropped 2% in 2015. Statewide, 68% of cases achieved fact- finding within the 75-day statutory requirement. This is the second year that has seen this decrease.

• Six-month review hearings compliance remained steady for 2015. Statewide, 85% of cases achieved the first review hearing within six months.

• Permanency planning hearings within 12 months decreased 3%. In 2015, 88% of cases met the 12-month time standard for first permanency hearing.

• The percentage of cases reaching permanency before 15 months of out-of- home care decreased 5% to 28% in 2015. The percentage of reunifications before 15 months, a subset of all reunification exits, also decreased by 7% to 45% in 2015.

• The percentage of TPR petitions filed within 15 months of out-of-home care decreased 1% to 63% in 2015, the lowest over the last five years.

• Adoptions that achieved the statutory goal of finalization within six months of the termination order by ‘year adoption was completed’ currently sits at 40% for 2015, a decrease of 4% from the previous reporting year.

| 5 |

Dependency filings dipped slightly in 2015 by 4%. However, filings remain at multi-year highs after jumping 33% in 2010. Dependency filing rates (per 1,000 children in general population) remained steady, again matching 2010 highs.

3811

50634687 4743

5076 5064 4866

2.43.2 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2

0123456789101112

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Chart Title

DEP Filings Rate per 1000

Exhibit 1a. Number and Rate of Dependency Filings from 2009-2015

19501743 1682 1737

18132022

1798

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 1b. Number of Termination Filings from 2009-2015

After a steady increase over the previous three years, termination filings dropped 12% from 2014 through 2015.

dependency and Filing trends

| 6 |

Goals and recommendationsThe goals and recommendations over the years remain similar:

• Establish adequate and stable funding to support courts’ research to promote accountability and transparency efforts in child welfare outcomes, including the sustainability of this report.

• Continue development of process and outcomes measures to assess the impact of any changes that are made to individual courts’ case processing practices.

• Maintain the level of data sharing between WSCCR and Children’s, increasing the understanding of child events and outcomes by clarifying data entry, coding, and analysis of foster care information.

• Sustain established timely and regular data exchanges with Children’s to maintain and improve management reporting and online updates to performance reporting – directly supporting Washington’s CQI efforts.

• Establish better collaboration, coordination, and cooperation with child welfare and children’s research entities at state and national levels.

• Continue useful and meaningful performance management and case handling through implementation of CQI, using the data provided in the IDTR and this report.

• Improve consistency and accuracy in the input of court data codes that are used to track court performance.

| 7 |

ObjeCTIveSfiling trends

reportingcourt performance

dependencyimprovement

exhibits

engagement

strategy

outreach

planning

petitions

FJCIP

representation

fact-finding

case volumesefforts

outcomesrecommendationshearings

cases

permanency

standardsanalyses

quality

timelinessmeasures children

percent

median dayscompliance

review

status

This report on dependency case processing presents analysis of timeliness of certain events in court cases for children involved in the child welfare system. The timeliness standards for these events are all specified in federal or state law, and the set of standards were initially identified by staff at the AOC working with the Family and Juvenile Law Committee of the Superior Court Judges’ Association and Children’s Administration (Children’s).

The Washington State Center for Court Research (WSCCR), which produces this report, continually checks with the organizations – courts, Children’s, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO), the Office of Public Defense (OPD), court-appointed special advocates, and the legislature – on possible improvements to the report that will make it more useful to recipients. In response to the ongoing feedback from groups of report users, and as part of WSCCR’s commitment to Continuous Quality Improvement, WSCCR has added detail to some aspects of the report, such as separate analyses for the timeliness of specific permanency outcomes (adoption, aging out, emancipation, guardianship, and reunification), demographic analysis of court-involved dependent children, number and rate of dependency filings per year, and re-dependencies* into the system for each court.

*For the purposes of this report, a re-dependency is defined as a newly filed dependency case that had a prior dependency for the child that ended with a documented dismissal.

reunification

dismissal review hearingFamLink

| 8 |

Measures:

1)Percentofcaseswithfact-findingwithin75daysofthepetition

2)Mediannumberofdaystofact-finding

RCW 13.34.070(1): The fact-finding hearing on the petition shall be held no later than seventy-five days after the filing of the petition, unless exceptional reasons for a continuance are found.

Fact-finding is one of the first major judicial events in the dependency process, and significant delays to fact-finding may prolong court involvement and increase the amount of time a child spends in foster care. To evaluate case processing with respect to this performance measure, court data from the Superior Court Management and Information System (SCOMIS) was used to calculate the number of days to the first fact-finding hearing. However, in some instances – such as parties stipulating to a finding of dependency and waiving a fact-finding hearing, or a case dismissal prior to the hearing – action is taken on the petition without a formal hearing. In such cases where a fact-finding hearing is not documented in SCOMIS, the length of time from the petition to the first order of dependency or an order of dismissal was used as an imputed time to fact-finding interval.

objective 1: FAct-FindinG within 75 dAys

74 74 71 70 68

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 2. Percent of Cases with Fact-Finding within 75 Days of Petition

The rate of compliance for 2015 dropped 2% from the previous reporting year to 68%. This is the lowest compliance rate over the last five reporting years. Note that cases are included in the year in which the fact-finding hearing is due, not the year in which the petition is filed.

| 9 |

61 61 63 64 63

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 3. Median Number of Days from Fact-Finding to Petition

77 77 73 71 71

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 4. Percent of Cases with Fact-Finding within 75 Days of Petition - FJCIP

- - - statewide

The median number of days from the date the petition is filed to the fact-finding hearing remains fairly stable over the last three years. 2015 median days to fact-finding is 63 days.

Exhibit 4 illustrates fact-finding compliance for Family and Juvenile Court Improvement (FJCIP) counties compared to the rest of the state.

| 10 |

objective 2: review heArinGs every six months

Measures:

1)Percentoffirstdependencyreviewhearingswithinsixmonths

2)Mediannumberofdaystofirstreviewhearing

RCW 13.34.138(1): The status of all children found to be dependent shall be reviewed by the court at least every six months from the beginning date of the placement episode or the date dependency is established, whichever is first. The purpose of the hearing shall be to review the progress of the parties and determine whether court supervision should continue.

The purpose of a review hearing is to assess the progress of the parties and determine whether court supervision should continue. Because the statutorily required due date for the first review hearing is difficult to identify for some cases, this report determines the due date for the first review hearing to be six months from the filing date of the dependency petition.

85 84 86 85 85

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 5. Percent of First Dependency Review Hearings within Six Months

The rate of compliance for 2015 remained steady from 2014 at 85%.

| 11 |

145 142 141 140 141

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 6. Median Number of Days to First Review Hearing

90 90 89 88 89

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 7. Percent of First Dependency Review Hearings within Six Months - FJCIP

- - - statewide

The median number of days from the petition to the first review hearing has been fairly stable over the last three years. For 2015, median days to first review is 141 days.

Exhibit 7 illustrates first review hearing compliance for FJCIP counties compared to therest of the state.

| 12 |

objective 3: PermAnency PlAnninG heArinG within 12 months

Measures:

1)Percentofcaseswithfirstpermanencyplanninghearingwithin12 monthsofplacement

2)Mediandurationfromplacementtofirstpermanencyplanninghearing

3)Percentofalldependencypermanencyplanninghearingswithin12 months

4)Mediannumberofdaysforallpermanencyplanninghearings

RCW 13.34.145(1)(a): A permanency planning hearing shall be held in all cases where the child has remained in out-of-home care for at least nine months and an adoption decree, guardianship order, or permanent custody order has not previously been entered. The hearing shall take place no later than twelve months following commencement of the current placement episode.

The purpose of a permanency planning hearing is to inquire into the welfare of the child and progress of the case, and to reach decisions regarding permanent placement. In order to calculate a due date for a permanency planning hearing, FamLink data was used to determine the beginning date of the placement episode and the length of time the child was in that placement. If the requisite nine months had passed, the due date for the permanency planning hearing was set at 12 months from the date the placement began.

85 84 87 84 88

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 8. Percent of Cases with a Permanency Planning Hearing within 12 Months of Placement

The percentage of cases in which the first permanency planning hearing occurred within 12 months of the beginning of the placement episode (meeting the statutory requirement) increased 4% in 2015 to 88%.

| 13 |

10.0 10.0 9.9 9.9 9.7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 9. Median Number of Months to First Permanency Planning Hearing

89 91 92 88 91

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 10. Percent of Cases with a Permanency Planning Hearing within 12 Months

of Placement - FJCIP

- - - statewide

In 2015, the median number of months to the first permanency planning hearing is the lowest over the last five reporting years at 9.7 months.

Exhibit 10 illustrates first permanency planning hearing compliance for FJCIP countiescompared to the rest of the state.

| 14 |

94 91 93 93 93

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 11. Percent of Permanency Planning Review Hearings Held within 12 Months

291 296 294 295 294

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 12. Median Number of Days to Permanency Planning Review Hearings

The percent of all permanency planning hearings held in a timely manner remained even at 93% for 2015.

Median number of days to all permanency planning hearings decreased in 2015 to 294days.

| 15 |

objective 4: PermAnency Achieved beFore 15 months oF out-oF-home cAre

Measures:

1)Percentofcasesachievingpermanencywithin15monthsofout-of- home care

2)Mediannumberofmonthsspentinout-of-homecarepriortofinal outcome

3)Percentofcasesresultinginreunificationbefore15monthsofout-of- home care

RCW 13.34.145(1)(c): Permanency planning goals should be achieved at the earliest possible date, preferably before the child has been in out-of-home care for fifteen months.

The goal of state and federal child welfare laws is to provide children with safe, nurturing, and permanent living situations as quickly as possible. Although there is no specific statutory time requirement for achieving permanency, the Washington State Legislature has set a goal of achieving permanency before a child has spent 15 months in out-of-home care. To measure time to permanency, FamLink data was used to identify the length of time spent in out-of-home care. Final permanent outcomes, (reunification, adoption, and guardianship) and other outcomes (aging out), were also taken from FamLink. A permanency due date was set as the date the child reached 15 months in out-of-home care. This indicator shows the percentage of children who had an exit from placement by the 15-month due date, as documented in FamLink.

30 33 29 3328

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 13. Percent of Cases Achieving Exit Before 15 Months of Out-of-Home Care

Permanency within 15 months of out-of-home care dropped 5% to 28% in 2015.

| 16 |

05

1015202530354045505560

Exhibit 14. Median Number of Months of Out-of-Home Care to Exit Outcome

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Aging Out/ Emancipations

Guardianships

Reunifications

Adoptions

The length of time spent in out-of-home care differs depending upon the type of outcome. In 2015, the median length of time to permanency increased to 16 months for reunifications, compared to 38 months for youth who had aged out or were emancipated, and 29 months for youth who were adopted. Over the last two years, the median number of months spent in out-of-home care before establishing a guardianship has remained steady at 23 months.

| 17 |

5449 48 52

45

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 15. Percent of Reunification Before 15 Months of Out-of-Home Care

3235 31 36

29

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 16. Percent of Cases Achieving Exit Before 15 Months of Out-of-Home Care - FJCIP

- - - statewide

The percentage of reunifications that occurred timely within 15 months of out-of-home care dropped by 7% to 45% in 2015.

Exhibit 16 illustrates permanency within 15 months of out-of-home care compliance for FJCIP counties compared to the rest of the state.

| 18 |

objective 5: terminAtion oF PArentAl riGhts Petition Filed within 15 months oF

out-oF-home cAreMeasures:

1)Percentofcaseswithterminationofparentalrights(TPR)petitionfiled within 15 months of out-of-home care

2)Mediannumberofmonthsofout-of-homecarepriortoTPRpetition filing

3)Mediannumberofmonthsfromdependencyfilingtolegallyfreestatus

The Adoptions and Safe Families Act (United States Public Law 105-89, section 103) requires states to begin the process of terminating parental rights for certain cases, including those in which children have been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. Exceptions to this rule are cases where the child is being cared for by a relative, there is a compelling reason why termination would not be in the best interest of the child, or the State has failed to offer the necessary services to the family.

FamLink data was used to calculate time in out-of-home care, as well as the time from the start of the placement to the date of petition to terminate parental rights. Data from AOC was used to determine the actual filing date of the TPR petition, if one had been filed, and whether other compelling reasons existed for not filing a TPR petition. In general, both the quality of data for TPR petitions and the accuracy of reporting have improved in recent years thanks to more widespread use of valid codes when documenting exceptions to the 15-month requirement based on “compelling reasons.”

64 66 66 64 63

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 17. Percent of Cases with TPR Petition Filed within 15 Months of Out-of-Home Care

Of the dependent children who had an associated termination case or who were due for a termination case in 2015, 63% had a termination petition within 15 months of out-of-home care, a drop of 1% from the previous reporting year, and lowest over the last five years.

| 19 |

11.3 12.1 13.0 12.5 11.8

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 18. Median Number of Months in Out-of-Home Care Prior to TPR Petition

71 70 72 70 68

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 19. Percent of Cases with TPR Petition Filed within 15 Months of

Out-of-Home Care - FJCIP

- - - statewide

The median number of months spent in out-of-home care prior to the filing of a TPR petition was 11.8 months in 2015.

Exhibit 19 illustrates the percent of cases with TPR petition filed within 15 months of out-of-home care for FJCIP counties compared to the rest of the state.

| 20 |

Exhibit 20. Number of Termination Cases Resolved

with an Approved Petition by Year Legally Free Month 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Grand

Total January 110 73 107 99 133 522 February 105 105 108 130 126 574 March 108 107 114 115 132 576 April 86 96 119 108 129 538 May 84 132 126 127 113 582 June 127 109 122 113 142 613 July 86 108 109 129 107 539 August 99 85 103 125 85 497 September 95 105 91 140 113 544 October 95 149 121 128 109 602 November 115 123 103 109 109 559 December 81 110 96 104 81 472 Grand Total 1191 1302 1319 1427 1379 6618

19.6 20.121.9 21.9 22.2

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 21. Median Number of Months from DEP Filing to Legally Free

This exhibit shows the number of termination cases with a resolution of an approvedpetition indicating the child is legally free.

Exhibit 21 shows the median number of months from dependency filing to legally free status – termination cases with a resolution of an approved petition.

| 21 |

objective 6: AdoPtion comPleted within six months oF terminAtion order

Measures:

1)Percentofcaseswithadoptioncompletedwithinsixmonthsofthe termination order

2)Mediannumberofmonthstoadoptioncompletion

RCW 13.34.145(1)(c): In cases where parental rights have been terminated, the child is legally free for adoption, and adoption has been identified as the primary permanency planning goal, it shall be a goal to complete the adoption within six months following entry of the termination order.

In order to determine the percentage of cases that achieved the goal of adoption within six months of a termination order, a due date for a completed adoption was set at six months from the date the child became legally free. AOC’s SCOMIS data was usedto identify the date of the termination order, and Children’s FamLink data was used to identify the date the adoption was finalized.

42 4438

44 40

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 22. Percent of Cases with Adoption Completed within Six Months to Termination Order

Adoptions that achieved the statutory goal of finalization within six months of the termination order by ‘year adoption was completed’ currently sits at 40% for 2015, a decrease of 4% from the previous reporting year.

| 22 |

7.3 6.67.6 6.8 6.9

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 23. Median Number of Months from Termination Order to Adoption Completion

45 4741

47 46

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exhibit 24. Percent of Cases with Adoption Completed within Six Months of Termination

Order - FJCIP

- - - statewide

Exhibit 23 shows the median number of months from termination order to adoption completion was 6.9 months in 2015.

Exhibit 24 illustrates the percent of cases with adoption completed within six months of the termination order for FJCIP counties compared to the rest of the state.

| 23 |

PROCeSS TO OuTCOMeSinnovations

RDA

DSHSFJCIP

team

Spokane model

programs

progresschallenges

continuity

consistency

stability

reporting

resultsperformance

engagement standards

tracking

children

CAdecisions

interventionsduration

implementation

courts

study

dependency cases

timelines

trainingIDTRre-entry

duration compliance

measure

| 24 |

Dependency Cases in Spokane, other FJCIP Courts, and non-FJCIP Courts: 2005 - 2013 Page 1 of 8

Innovation, Progress, and Challenges in Dependency Cases Spokane, FJCIP, and Non-FJCIP

Overview This report on dependency case processing in Washington’s courts is produced jointly by DSHS’s Research and Data Analysis Division and the Washington State Center for Court Research (WSCCR). It compares measures between courts that receive funding from the Family and Juvenile Court Improvement Program (FJCIP) courts and non-FJCIP courts. The overview also includes comparisons of measures for Spokane’s Family Court, which also participates in FJCIP. The study examines the dependency cases that were established during calendar years 2005-2013, and that were open for more than 90 days. In 2013, the last year of the study period, Spokane accounted for about 14% of dependency cases in Washington State, all other FJCIP courts account for 53% of dependency cases, and non-FJCIP courts for the remaining 33%. The authors gratefully acknowledge that this work was funded in part by a grant from Casey Family Programs. Innovations Occurring During the Study Period Data analyzed for this report comes from dependency case activity during the nine years from 2005 to 2013. The period from 2006 to 2009 saw three major innovations related to court handling of dependency cases in Washington:

1. The Spokane unified family court model was implemented in 2007; 2. Washington’s Dependency Reporting System debuted in 2007, with court-level reporting

starting in 2008; and 3. The majority of FJCIP courts began their programs—marked by the hiring of FJCIP

coordinators—in 2008. The Spokane Model was developed in Spokane County Juvenile Court in 2007. A core team consisting of a court commissioner, a Children’s Administration (Children’s) social worker, an assistant attorney general, a parent attorney, and a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) are assigned to dependency cases at the shelter care hearing and participate in all subsequent hearings until the dependency is dismissed or until the termination of parental rights (TPR) trial begins. Court commissioners are assigned to a rotation in juvenile court and, in addition, sit in juvenile court one day per week when they are not assigned to juvenile court. This approach provides consistency, continuity, and stability. A National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges’ evaluation of the Spokane Family Court noted that Spokane processes cases in a timely manner, that children are placed with a relative or parents more frequently than in foster care, that parents attend the majority of hearings, with mothers’ compliance at the review hearing relating positively to the likelihood of reunification. Researchers identified three best practice areas that may be contributing to the efficiency in Spokane: continuance practice, engagement of parties, and case tracking and reporting. Years of tracking Spokane in WSCCR’s dependency reporting system show that Spokane Family Court generally leads the state in terms of timely case processing.

| 25 |


Washington’s Dependency Reporting System started with a 2007 legislative mandate that Children’s, the Attorney General’s Office, and the Administrative Office of the Courts report on statutory dependency timeliness standards. WSCCR, the courts, and Children’s cooperate to provide information that policy makers can use to improve the child welfare system, information that also can be used as part of continual quality improvement by the courts, Children’s, and other system partners. WSCCR reports on eight case-processing objectives ranging from whether a fact-finding hearing occurs within 75 days of case filing to whether adoptions are completed within six months of the termination of parental rights order. The system produces annual reports that show performance for the state as a whole and for individual courts. WSCCR also produces monthly online, interactive reports with the ability to drill down to the individual case level. The Interactive Dependency Timeliness Report (IDTR), a web-based application, addresses the need for frequent and robust feedback to the field and supports the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) efforts in Washington. Authorized users can view data for the state, their own court, or any other court. Users can select data filters and level of detail, allowing them to view data all along the spectrum, from broad state-to-county or county-to-county comparisons to case-specific information. The Interactive Dependency Timeliness Report (IDTR) is available to authorized users in all courts, Children’s, CASA, the Court Improvement Training Academy (CITA), the Office of Public Defense, and the Office of Civil Legal Aid. Frequent data exchanges between WSCCR and Children’s allow for regular updates to the IDTR, so that users can rapidly identify trends and areas needing attention. Courts can compare their performance to other courts, and identify problematic cases to diagnose problems and take corrective action. The updates also enable county clerks’ staff to see the results of their data quality efforts, which are the bedrock of consistent and accurate data. Through continual and expanding cooperation from Children’s, quality assurance teams, county clerks, FJCIP coordinators, and CITA’s Table of Ten, the IDTR is also vital to accurately assess training needs related to improving outcomes for children and families. The Family and Juvenile Court Improvement Program (RCW 2.56.030) supports superior courts’ efforts to 1) implement Unified Family Court (UFC) principles endorsed by the Board for Judicial Administration in 2005, and 2) comply with state and federal timelines for dependency cases. The state provides FJCIP funding and framework to 13 superior courts. FJCIP relies on judicial leaders to create actionable plans to enhance court operations. Local FJCIP coordinators work to implement court improvements associated with UFC best practices. Locally-developed plans focus on elements such as stable leadership (longer judicial rotations), education, and case management support. Superior courts receiving FJCIP funding are Asotin/Columbia/Garfield, Chelan, Clallam, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane, and Thurston. The Court Improvement Program (CIP) Steering Committee has identified two key yet unmet system requirements related to regular oversight and feedback. First, the FJCIP chief judges, program coordinators, and administrators need information on best practice development for family, dependency, and juvenile court operations. As research and studies advance, court operations should be continually adapting to current developments. Second, the CIP Steering Committee aims to provide oversight of court-specific deliverables—whether a court is achieving the results anticipated in its court improvement plan—and to provide feedback on how a program can target local improvements.

| 26 |


Performance The presentation of performance measures below covers three major areas.

• Median dependency duration is measured as the number of days between case filing and the dismissal of the case.

• Re-entry into the system, defined as a new dependency or founded allegation of abuse or neglect that occurs within 18 months of dismissal of a dependency case, is another important outcome. Re-entry relates to a child’s repeated involvement with the child welfare system. Analysis of re-entry is restricted to instances involving original cases that were open for at least 90 days. Serial involvement of children with the child welfare system is an important indicator of the system’s—meaning the courts, Children’s, and other system actors—ability to understand the needs and risks associated with particular children and families and to respond with decisions, interventions, and supports that promote permanency.

• Three process measures – fact-finding within 75 days, termination petition filing within 15 months, and adoption finalization within six months of termination petition filing – are reported on because timeliness for court process affects total time in care (Technical Report: Permanency Court Processes and Outcomes for Children in Out of Home Care, Marshall, Orme, and McCurley, 2013).

The duration of dependencies — the period from case filing to the end of court involvement — declined substantially from 2006 to 2009 for all courts, regardless of participation in FJCIP. The decline was slightly larger for FJCIP courts (25%) than for non-FJCIP courts (24%), with much of the difference attributable to Spokane (which saw a 30% decline from 2006 to 2009). In 2005 Spokane already had low dependency durations compared to other courts, and this difference increased with implementation of a unified family court. In 2013, at 582 days median dependency duration, Spokane’s average time in dependency was 24% (or 184 days) less than the average of all other FJCIP courts and 26% (207 days) less than non-FJCIP courts.

582

766706

789

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

days

year dependency established

Median Dependency Duration: Spokane*, FJCIP without Spokane, All FJCIP, and Non-FJCIP Courts

Spokane FJCIP w/o Spokane FJCIP w/ Spokane Non-FJCIP

*Spokane Model began January 2007 with the Attorney General’s Office joining the team by January 2008.

| 27 |


Among the FJCIP courts, there is usually a decline in dependency duration in the first year of FJCIP participation. This improvement persists over the following next few years for most, but not all, FJCIP courts, and the results seen in Spokane are similar to those seen in Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish.

*The Asotin/Columbia/Garfield Judicial District hired a coordinator in 2005, so “before FJCIP” for that Family Court occurred before the start of the study period for this analysis.

COMPARING ACROSS COURTS: Results presented here were also tested using cases that were matched, across courts, on several factors, such as placement type, age at dependency, and family domestic violence. The matched sample results support those of the analysis of unmatched cases.

863

797

901951 925 934 918

807 819

909

651

815

707 681

881

768746 715

565

799

712

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Median Dependency Duration: FJCIP Courts*

Before FJCIP First Year of FJCIP After First Year of FJCIP

| 28 |


Spokane’s better than average performance on dependency duration and court process compliance rates has been accompanied by higher percentages of children who re-enter the system with a new dependency and/or are victims of new founded allegations of abuse/neglect following dependency dismissal.

The long-term trend for Spokane, other FJCIP, and non-FJCIP shows decline in rates of new dependency.

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Median Dependency Duration and New Dependency or Founded Abuse/Neglect Allegation w/in 18 Months of

Dismissal (Dependencies Opened 2009 - 2013)

Median Dependency (Days) % of Dependencies ‘Failed’ within 18 Months

7

11.6

8.4

5.4

2.8

6

2.3

3.8

6.1

2.6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Percent w/new dependency

Year Dependency Established

New Dependency or Founded Allegationswithin 18 Months of Dismissal

Spokane FJCIP w/o Spokane Non-FJCIP

| 29 |


Although the ability of courts to be compliant with standards for timely process is only one of several possible influences on the duration of dependency cases, there is a demonstrated connection between timeliness for process and total time in care (Marshall, Orme, and McCurley, 2013). The chart below shows the average timeliness for three measures, fact-finding within 75 days, termination petition filing within 15 months, and adoption finalization within 6 months of termination petition filing for individual FJCIP courts (or judicial districts) for the period from 2009 thru 2013. Although the average performance of FJCIP courts was better than that of non-FJCIP courts, substantial variation across FJCIP courts can be seen, highlighting the need to engage all courts in data-driven performance management.

* Compliance rates calculated as the percent of cases excluding exceptions/not applicable: [N compliant/(N compliant + N non-compliant)] x100

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Process Measure Performance(Dependencies Opened 2009 - 2013)

First Fact-Finding within 75 Days Termination Petition within 15 Months Adoption within 6 Months of Petition

| 30 |


Compliance rates for the court processes of fact-finding within 75 days, termination petition filing within 15 months, and adoption finalization within 6 months of termination petition filing showed improvement over the 2005-2013 period. Spokane’s performance on these measures surged with its implementation of a unified family court model in 2007, though other courts have approached or attained the same levels of compliance as Spokane in recent years. The group of all other FJCIP courts (excluding Spokane) also tends to show higher compliance rates than the non-FJCIP courts.

* Compliance rate as the percent of cases excluding exceptions/not applicable

73.871

64.3

71.9

55.4

67.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Percent Compliance


Fact-Finding Hearing Compliance Rate*


| 31 |


* Compliance rate as the percent of cases excluding exceptions/not applicable

*Compliance rate as the percent of cases with adoption completed

54.5

71.6

48.7

68.2

41.5

55.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

PercentCompliance


Termination Petition Filing Compliance Rate*


16.9

88.1

21.2

70.7

26.4

63.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Percent Compliance


Adoption Finalization Compliance Rate (within 6 months of termination petition)*


| 32 |

MuLTI SYSTeMYOuTH

Becca petitions

CHINSreportdependency

referral

juvenile justice

county level

prevalenceCA

findingsinvolvement

jurisdictionanalysistruancy

interventionCIP

outcomes

policy

cohort petitions

ARY

methodspreventiontrends

informationneeds

developments

The percentage of youth who find themselves involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system varies considerably among Washington counties, leading to interest in the different policies, programs, and practices which affect these numbers in each county. Understanding the reasons behind the differences may help juvenile welfare workers design effective methods for helping these young people.

The following study is the second in a series on children who find themselves in juvenile court for alleged law-violating behavior and also have a history of involvement in the child welfare system. Called “multi-system,” “cross-over,” or “dual status” youth, these young people may be foster children, or members of families being investigated or monitored by child welfare officials.

Some possible next steps for using this information would be development of an inventory of available interventions for at-risk youth, building on understanding of how each system responds to the needs of these youth, and working collaboratively to improve timely, appropriate, and effective services.

Funded by the Court Improvement Program, future reports in this series will explore the types of offender referrals experienced by multi-system youth, the educational outcomes for this population, and additional analysis of multi-system prevalence across race, ethnicity, gender, and age.

courts

study

programs

cross-over

dual status

| 33 |

1

Multi-System Youth In Washington State: Prevalence By Jurisdiction

PO Box 41170 Olympia, WA 98504-1170 • Washington State Center for Court Research • [email protected]

Overview

The Washington State Center for Court Research (WSCCR) released its preliminary state-wide report on multi-system involved youth in 20141. Multi-system youth are broadly defined as children who have experience in both the juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Prior research has identified multi-system youth as at higher risk for negative outcomes than their peers who are only involved with one system, including an increased rate of juvenile offender recidivism, a greater need for mental health treatment, and reduced educational success2. While multi-system youth may be at higher risk for negative outcomes, additional research is necessary to enhance our understanding of the particular needs of this population within Washington State. The initial WSCCR multi-system prevalence report found that in Washington State, 43.9% of all youth referred to juvenile court in 2010 had a record of previous child welfare system involvement3 (Figure 1). All youth referred to juvenile court includes referrals on offender matters, as well as those petitioned as non-offenders through Truancy, At-Risk Youth (ARY) or Child in Need of Services (CHINS) (collectively known as Becca petitions4). The previous study also found that in Washington State, females and minority youth with a history of child welfare system involvement have a greater likelihood of subsequent referral to the juvenile justice system. The current report builds upon this initial state-wide analysis of multi-system prevalence and presents analysis by individual court. This approach sets the stage for an examination of how local system characteristics, programs and policies may contribute to varying regional rates of multi-system involvement.

Methods

This second report in a series on multi-system youth in Washington State seeks to further our understanding of the 2010 cohort of youth who were referred to the juvenile justice system, and identifies the jurisdiction where each youth was referred to juvenile court in 2010. A youth may be referred5 to court by more than one jurisdiction, yet for the purpose of this study, a youth’s “home” court is determined by the location of the youth’s initial offender

56.1%

31.3%

12.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

No Child Welfare SystemInvolvement (n=17,606)

CPS Accepted Referral(n=9,810)

Dependency/Out-of-HomePlacement (n=3,972)

Perc

ent o

f 201

0 Ju

veni

le Ju

stic

e C

ohor

t

History of Child Welfare System Involvement

Figure 1. Percent of 2010 Juvenile Justice Involved Youth with a History of Child Welfare System Involvement6

43.9%

1 Funding from the Federal Court Improvement Program helps support this research. The initial report can be found at http://www.courts.wa.gov/wsccr/docs/ MultiSystemYouthInWA_Final.pdf2 Pecora, P.J., Jensen, P.S., Romanelli, L.H., Jackson, L.J., & Ortiz, A. (2009). Mental health services for children placed in foster care: An overview of current challenges. Child Welfare, 88(1), 5-26.3 “Previous child welfare system invovement” indicates the youth was previously reported to the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) Children’s Administration for alleged abuse and/or neglect or placed for any period of time in out-of-home care. The report or placement could have occurred at any age.4 See RCW 28A.225 and RCW 13.32A for more detailed information on the Washington State Compulsory School Attendance and Admission Laws and the Family Reconciliation Act. 5 “Referred to the juvenile justice system” indicates the youth was referred to court on an offender matter or through a Becca petition. This does not automatically indicate that a case has been filed, nor does it imply the outcome of the case. All cases including those with an outcome of deferred, diverted, dismissed, or guilty are included in this study. Becca petitions include: At-Risk Youth (ARY), Child In Need Of Services (CHINS), and Truancy. 6 Youth are only assigned to their highest level of child welfare system involvement.

| 34 |

2

referral or Becca petition in calendar year 2010. Courts with fewer than 40 youth in their 2010 juvenile justice population have been excluded from the county-level analyses. Note that the youth’s child welfare contact may have occurred in a jurisdiction that differs from the location of their offender referral or Becca petition, and at this time, data is limited to child welfare-related events that occur within Washington State. In this series of reports, for a youth7 to be considered child welfare system involved, the youth will have experienced, at minimum, a referral to Child Protective Services (CPS) that was accepted for investigation8. While a referral to CPS is the minimum criteria for youth to be considered as having involvement with Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS)Children’s Administration, this data also includes youth with a higher level of system involvement, such as those who have been removed from their home and/or progressed through the formal dependency court case process9.

Findings

Figure 1 presents rates by county, of multi-system prevalence for the full cohort of youth who enteredthe juvenile justice system in 2010. This cohort of 31,388 youth includes those who were referred to juvenile court through either offender matters or Becca petitions. The cohort is comprised of 21,684 youth who experienced at least one offender referral, and 9,704 youth who experienced only a Becca petition10. The state-wide multi-system prevalence for youth with an offender referral in 2010 was found to be 44.2% (Figure 2). The state-wide multi-system prevalence for youth with only a Becca petition in 2010 was found to be 43.4% (Figure 3). The 21,684 youth with an offender referral is inclusive of the 3,025 youth who experienced both an offender referral and a Becca petition in 2010. When looking exclusively at the 3,025 youth with both an offender referral and a Becca petition in 2010, the rate of multi-system prevalence increases to 55.1%.

7 Youth above the age of 8 and under the age of 18 at time of referral to juvenile court in 2010 are included in this study.8 A referral to CPS that was accepted for investigation does not mean the child was abused or neglected. If the referral was investigated and found to be true, it would meet the legal definition of abuse or neglect.9 Current data limitations prohibit the determination of dates of active Children’s Administration involvement, and it is unknown if the case remained active at the time of referral to the juvenile justice system.10 The 2010 Annual Published Caseload Report from the Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts documents 14,481 Becca petitions filed in the 2010 calendar year. The separation in the number of individuals with Becca petitions versus the number of Becca petitions filed is due to some youth experiencing more than one petition in 2010.

State-wide average equals 44.2%

Figure 2. Youth with an Offender Referral in 2010 with Prior Child Welfare System Involvement

50% or greater 40-49.9% 30-39.9% 20-29.9% 19% or less Data Excluded Due to Small Sample Size

| 35 |

3

Disaggregating the data to the individual court level for youth with an offender referral in 2010 demonstrates a range of multi-system prevalence across Washington State, from a low of 17.5% in Adams County, to a high of 60.4% in Skamania County. Figure 2 demonstrates that higher rates of multi-system involvement (50.0% or greater) were found to occur in the western most area of the state. Moderate rates of multi-system involvement (40.0%-49.9%) were concentrated along the northern stretch of the I-5 corridor, and in the south-central portion of Washington State. The lowest rates for multi-system prevalence (17.5%-39.2%) were found to occur in the more central jurisdictions.

Findings from the study of county-level multi-system prevalence for youth with an offender referral in 2010 identify two outliers that are of particular interest. Thurston County falls within the lowest third of counties for rate of multi-system prevalence, and is one of the only courts with a lower rate that is bounded by counties with either moderate or high rates of multi-system involvement. Clark County is another location of interest, as it was found to have a moderate rate,

yet is surrounded by courts that were found to have a higher rate of multi-system prevalence. Figure 3 depicts only those youth who were juvenile court-involved in 2010 through a Becca petition (Truancy, At-Risk Youth, or Child in Need of Services). This map does not include youth with both offender matters and a Becca petition in 2010. Regional trends for rates of multi-system involvement for youth with a Becca petition are similar to the findings for youth with an offender referral in 2010, with a concentration of higher rates of multi-system prevalence found to occur in the most western jurisdictions, and lower rates found to occur in the more central jurisdictions.

Of interest are those courts found to have a much higher rate of multi-system prevalence for offender youth than for their cohort of Becca-petitioned youth (Skagit, Okanogan, and Franklin Counties). And on the other hand, two courts were found to have a higher rate of multi-system prevalence for Becca petitioned youth than for youth with an offender referral (Grant and Yakima Counties).

It is evident from this study that the rate of multi-system involvement varies across Washington State, yet this is only the first step in a process

Figure 3. Becca Petitioned Youth in 2010 with Prior Child Welfare System Involvement

State-wide average equals 43.4%

50% or greater 40-49.9% 30-39.9% 20-29.9% 19% or less Data Excluded Due to Small Sample Size

| 36 |

4

of identifying indicators that may impact regional variation. The following list of factors may contribute to the variation in rates of multi-system involvement:

This analysis only identifies child welfare system involvement that was initiated prior to the youth’s referral to the juvenile justice system. It is possible that additional youth will be referred to the child welfare system after their referral to juvenile court, in particular those youth who first came into contact with the juvenile justice system at a young age. A future analysis of youth with the trajectory of juvenile justice contact prior to child welfare system involvement could demonstrate variations in jurisdictional prevalence for multi-system youth.

Local programs and policies may impact the likelihood that a court files a Becca petition (Truancy, At-Risk Youth, Child in Need of Services). Prevention and intervention programs may impact the potential for a youth with child welfare system involvement to enter the juvenile justice system through a Becca petition.

Variation in prevention and intervention programs that serve youth and families who are at risk of entering the child welfare and/or juvenile justice system may impact the probability of a youth entering one, or both, systems.

Recommended CitationPickard, C. (2015) Multi-System Youth in Washington State: Prevalence by Jurisdiction. Olympia, WA: Washington State Center for Court Research, Administrative Office of the Courts.

Next Steps

The goal of this report is to expand upon our knowledge of patterns of system involvement, and provide more detail on how often vulnerable populations come into contact with systems that have the opportunity to provide prevention and intervention services.

The question of what causes variations in multi-system prevalence must be explored through partnerships between agencies that come into contact with high-risk youth and families. A next step in this effort is to develop an inventory of available interventions for youth who are at risk of becoming, or are currently, multi-system involved. As demonstrated by the level of multi-system prevalence in Washington State, multiple agencies have often served the same clients. In order to improve our ability to assist youth and their families who are multi-system involved, we must increase our knowledge of how each system responds to the needs of their clients. A comprehensive inventory of services should include interventions offered through the courts, DSHS Children’s Administration, other DSHS mental health and substance abuse services, and the educational system. Through the tracking of outcomes for multi-system youth, and the cultivation of our understanding for how each system responds to the needs of its clients, agencies can improve their ability to collaboratively provide timely, appropriate, and effective services.

Through funds provided by the Court Improvement Program, WSCCR will continue to explore trends in multi-system involvement. Upcoming reports will:

1. Provide detail for the type of offender referrals experienced by multi-system youth,

2. Provide educational outcomes for this high-risk population of youth, and

3. Provide a more focused analysis of multi-system prevalence across race, ethnicity, gender, and age of youth.

| 37 |

PROgRAMSengagement

education

collaboration

parentscasework

family

solutions

childrenleadership

model courts

CQI

ICWA

strategies

outcomes

projects

CITA

CIP

initiatives

responseworkgroups

development quality assessment

training

services

mentors

outreachmediation

court imProvement ProGrAmThe Court Improvement Program (CIP) is a coordinated, federally-funded effort to improve the state courts’ handling of foster care and adoption proceedings. In Washington, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) administers the CIP and the three associated grants Washington State receives.

• Basic Grant sponsors judicial attendance at the annual Children’s Justice Conference, national conferences, and also funds specific projects detailed in this report.

• Training Grant sponsors Court Improvement Training Academy (CITA).

• Data Grant helps provide funding support for this report and other child welfare research efforts at WSCCR.

With the assistance of a multi-disciplinary advisory committee, the CIP strategically plans for a variety of activities and programs to improve permanency, safety and well-being of children in foster care. CIP funds augment the funds available to the juvenile courts and the AOC to assist in the efforts of judicial officers to improve outcomes for children and families.

continuous QuAlity imProvementA tenet of the CIP, and all work in child welfare, is Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI). CQI is a way to figure out if what we are doing works and where adjustments may be necessary. CQI requirements provide accountability and transparency in the administration of the grants, and ultimately improve outcomes for children and families.

CQI is readily apparent in the development of this report and the IDTR, both of which have grown and become more useful and useable to the greater child welfare community.

grants

planning

oversightreview

representation

partnership

improvement

community

ACHIEVE

FAR

| 38 |

• Through requested feedback and suggestions, WSCCR has helped the courts and stakeholders increase their accountability to children and families in the way their cases are handled, with the goal of ever-improving outcomes.

• Courts have used the data presented in this and the interactive report to refine processes and procedures to improve timeliness of case processing.

• CQI procedures are also used in the Child and Family Service Review Program Improvement Plan. As of this writing, Washington is preparing for the third Child and Family Service Review, a comprehensive examination of the child welfare system. Data analysis was used to pinpoint areas that needed focus, rather than spending time and money on a broad-sweeping statewide approach to improvements. Focus on the courts with higher rates of non-compliance has decreased the percentage of non-compliance for those counties, which in turn positively affected the statewide numbers.

• Expanding the report’s coverage of outcomes measures marks a significant expansion of CQI related to children involved with dependency cases.

| 39 |

court imProvement trAininG AcAdemyThe Court Improvement Training Academy (CITA), sited at the University of Washington School of Law, provides training and system improvement support for the courts and child welfare community in Washington State. CITA is once again pleased to have the opportunity to collaborate with WSCCR in making the data presented in the IDTR a tool for court improvement statewide. The IDTR provides data counties can use to manage, assess, and improve their court systems on a local level and allows CITA to more efficiently target federal training resources to maximize their effectiveness.

Using the IDTR, CITA helps local jurisdictions identify issues where they can undertake measurable change efforts through targeted training and implementation efforts. CITA’s approach is data-informed, sensitive to local culture and needs, and mindful of the complex and multi-system nature of the work dependency courts do. The IDTR allows CITA, AOC, Children’s, and local court systems to operate from a common data source when making strategic decisions, whether at the state or county level. The collaborative relationship between WSCCR and CITA also allows for continuous improvement of the data system itself.

A cornerstone of CITA’s system improvement work with local courts is the Table of Ten. A Table of Ten is a focused effort to review a jurisdiction’s dependency system as a whole and an opportunity for those involved to make meaning of what they see and intentionally design a process to change it for the better. It is an effort at Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) on a local level. CITA has established 11 Tables of Ten across Washington. Some of the issues they identified to improve are timeliness to permanence, reduced time social workers spend in court, reduced continuances, increased focus on special needs of infants and young children in foster care, and improved interdisciplinary communication and collaboration. Virtually all of the Tables of Ten have used data from IDTR to identify system challenges, track the impact of their projects, and justify effective practice and policy changes.

Together, CITA, WSCCR and AOC support the work of courts receiving Family and Juvenile Court Improvement Program (FJCIP) funds, as well as the FJCIP Oversight Committee. FJCIP Coordinators regularly utilize the IDTR to inform and track the progress of their local court innovations. The Oversight Committee is tasked with guiding the improvement efforts of courts receiving FJCIP funds from the legislature, as well as sharing effective practices with other courts across the state.

CITA works to improve the practice of child welfare law through the creation of Communities of Practice, groups of individuals interested in a particular issue or tool to improve their work. CITA provides technical support and assistance in forming and managing these communities to maximize their potential. From 2012 through 2015, CITA coordinated training and Communities of Practice for lawyers participating in the national Quality Improvement Center (QIC) Child Representation Best Practice Study in Washington.

| 40 |

Outcomes from this randomized control project were impressive, and CITA has continued to support children’s attorneys across the state through Communities of Practice.

CITA utilizes a variety of tools to facilitate court system improvement and innovation efforts. In addition to using IDTR data with court audiences, CITA employs Liberating Structures, facilitation tools that engage diverse groups and blend “evidence based practice” expertise with the “practice based evidence” experience to move people to action. More information on Liberating Structures is available at www.liberatingstructures.com. CITA maintains a website that utilizes IDTR data and provides access to court improvement resources and materials, including the Juvenile Non-Offender Benchbook and Dependency Best Practices Guide.

www.liberatingstructures.com

| 41 |

eArly enGAGement strAteGiesyoung children in dependency courtIn 2015, almost 2,900 children from birth to five years old entered the dependency court system in Washington. Young children make up 60 percent of the court’s caseload and they tend to stay in care longer and return home less frequently than older children. In response to these numbers and the unique developmental needs of babies, toddlers and preschoolers, several counties have implemented early childhood efforts for court-involved families.

Pierce County sponsors the Best for Babies Pilot Project which launched in August 2014. The goal is to front-load services to infants (0-3 years) and their parents, in accordance with current best practices, to preserve the infant-parent bond, promote child well-being, and reduce time to permanence. The advisory team consists of community stakeholders from the fields of medicine, mental health, social work, nutrition, education, law, and others. The team meets twice monthly with parents, foster parents, social workers, and CASAs. The team offers input, feedback, and suggestions to enhance the infant-parent relationship and development, and provides information, support, and encouragement to parents and caregivers. To date, fifteen infants and toddlers have been served in the pilot project. Although the program is relatively new, promising results are being achieved. Three “Best for Babies” cases have resulted in dismissals – all reunifications. The dismissals occurred at 9 months, 11 months and 17 months, well below the average timeframe of 24+ months. With the help of community partners, families are referred to programs already in existence in the community, such as Early Head Start, Head Start, YMCA, Family Support Centers, and the Children’s Museum of Tacoma. These programs provide avenues for families to engage with their children and become well-grounded in their community. With these natural community supports in place, families receive continued support from programs that promote healthy families, long after the dependency is dismissed.

King County has several initiatives focused on dependency-involved young children and their families. The successful Supporting Early Connections (SEC) program continues to support healthy relationships for babies, toddlers, and their biological parents. Child-parent psychotherapy is provided by Navos Mental Health Solutions and paid for by Medicaid. A Navos therapist works closely with parents to help them develop the confidence and skills to care for and bond with their children and to connect with resources such as housing, food, and diapers. Children up to 36 months old who have an infant mental health

| 42 |

diagnosis are eligible for SEC. During a year of parent-child therapy, Navos provides three reports about family goals and progress to the attorney, social worker, and judge in the family’s dependency case.

The King County Early Childhood Table of Ten has also initiated two projects to support healthy development for children from birth to five years old. The Early Intervention Program is bringing early education and mental health providers together with court and child welfare professionals to facilitate assessment for developmental delays and disabilities for all dependency-involved children from birth to three years old. The Program focuses on improving parent-child visitation and all children under three years old are referred to the Early Intervention Program for developmental screening and assessment. The Visitation Project has utilized pre-filing Family Team Decision Making (FTDM) meetings to provide children from birth to five years old with developmentally appropriate visiting plans in the first 30 to 90 days after the child is removed from the home. Working with Children’s Home Society, members of the Table of Ten are also developing tools and partnerships to maximize family and community resources to support better visits.

The Snohomish County Table of Ten is focusing on infants under 12 months old who have been referred to the dependency court. Recognizing a sharp increase in these cases, the Table of Ten collected data that demonstrated a rise in heroin-related hospital holds for newborns. The court and its partners are working together to identify ways to better address the needs of these families and children.

establishing biological Paternity early ProjectThe purpose of the Establishing Biological Paternity Early Pilot Project is to significantly reduce the time to determine paternity in dependency and termination cases. The five pilot courts provide low-cost, easily accessible, and rapid DNA testing to alleged fathers in dependency and termination cases.

In Washington there is no statutory authority to appoint counsel for alleged fathers in dependency cases. Unrepresented litigants trying to negotiate the process of establishing paternity find that it tends to be very complex and time-consuming. During this process, alleged fathers are not yet parties to the case. Establishment of paternity is necessary before an alleged father can be ordered to participate in services. Ultimately permanency for these children is prolonged. If the courts could provide reliable, fast, and inexpensive paternity test results, which would greatly reduce the number of days to determine paternity, this would allow fathers to engage earlier in the dependency process.

Early identification enables:

• Courts to place children with fathers and paternal relatives at the beginning of a case in appropriate situations;

• Courts to order early and frequent visitation with fathers;• Fathers to participate in the case plans and services without delay; and• Courts to better meet the ASFA timelines.

| 43 |

The Office of Public Defense, Attorney General’s Office, and the courts have been working together on this CIP funded project. The pilot is in its second year and courts will provide a report including: comparison of average time between the request for a DNA test and the results using cases prior to the pilot project and during the project to show whether there was reduction in time for testing; any cost savings to the court, Children’s, and other court partners; and other results such as increased placement with paternal relatives, increased participation by fathers in court hearings, and earlier visitation with fathers.

Family team decision makingA Family Team Decision Making (FTDM) meeting is a Children’s facilitated team process that brings together the family, child welfare workers, community members, service providers, caregivers (with parent approval), youth when appropriate, and other people involved in the life of a child. The purpose of an FTDM meeting is to help guide the department in making critical decisions regarding the placement of a child prior to placement, following an emergent removal of a child from his or her home, changes in out-of-home placement, reunification, and placement in a permanent home.

Fathers matter outreach ProgramThe Fathers Matter Outreach Program provides tools and resources to help engage fathers in the lives of their children involved with the child welfare system. In 2010 Washington was chosen as one of four pilot sites around the country to participate in a three-year grant from the federal Children’s Bureau, Bringing Back the Dads: A Model Program Curriculum for Non-Resident Father Engagement. The pilot project was operated in King County and because of the success, it has expanded into other regions throughout the state. The pilot project revealed the earlier a father is engaged in a dependency case, the more likely he will become involved in the child’s life. Social workers now are required to contact both parents as soon as possible in a dependency case. Each region has a father liaison who reaches out to fathers and provides referrals to resources to increase father engagement, including a 12-week class that is facilitated by peer mentor fathers who have successfully navigated the child welfare system. Social workers and peer mentors are a critical link between fathers and their children. With support and resources, fathers can understand the impact they have on the lives of their children and learn how to improve their relationships.

mediationMediation in dependency cases is a topic of increasing interest in Washington. The more robust mediation programs are in King and Pierce counties, focusing on the time between the shelter care hearing and the fact-finding hearing. According to research conducted by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) the King County program has achieved significant outcomes in the first five years of operation including timelier case processing, increased resolution rates, increased placement with relatives compared to foster care, and higher rates of reunification with parents. Other counties also use various forms of mediation and alternative dispute resolution strategies.

| 44 |

Parents for Parents ProgramThe Parents for Parents (P4P) program is a peer outreach and education program provided by parents who have successfully navigated the child welfare system to parents who have recently entered the dependency system. The purpose of the program is to engage families earlier in services and reduce resistance to the court process. Beginning in 2005, Court Improvement Program funds have supported the start-up of the eight P4P programs functioning in ten counties. Continuous Quality Improvement techniques have been used to expand the program from its initial pilot project in Pierce County. King County has a robust program which was favorably evaluated by the National Center for Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Children’s Home Society Office of Policy and Innovation created a Parents for Parents Program Start-Up Guide, which aids in the development of a program customized for the particular needs of the area being served.

Dependency 101 classes are designed to educate parents about the dependency system that they must navigate in order to have their children returned. In addition to Dependency 101, Grays Harbor, King, Thurston and Spokane P4P programs sponsor Dependency 201 classes which are designed to provide tools and resources that help empower parents to be successful throughout their dependency cases. The King and Spokane programs also offer parent mentoring programs in the local jails. P4P provides the framework and infrastructure for parent advocacy work and develops the capacity of peer mentor leadership.

While the P4P program has been identified as a promising practice, the next step is to work toward establishing it as an evidence-based program. Children’s funded the ongoing maintenance of these programs, but because of severe budget cuts, it was no longer able to fund programs that were not evidence-based, including P4P. Legislation was passed during the 2015 legislative session which provided funding to existing P4P programs, expand three of the programs, and for an evaluation to determine if the program can be considered research-based. The initial evaluation is expected to be completed by December 2016. The legislation placed the P4P program under the direction of the Office of Public Defense, which contracts with the Children’s Home Society.

Parents representation ProgramThe Washington State Office of Public Defense (OPD) Parents Representation Program (PRP) provides state-funded attorney representation and case support services to indigent parents, custodians, and legal guardians involved in child dependency and termination of parental rights proceedings.

Key elements of the PRP include the implementation of caseload limits and professional attorney standards, access to expert services and independent social workers, OPD oversight, and ongoing training and support. The program also works closely with dependency parent ally organizations.

In 2014, the legislature appropriated funding for the OPD and the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) to provide additional legal services on a temporary basis to help resolve a backlog of termination of parental rights cases with the goal of achieving permanency for these children. In an effort to ensure effective processing of these cases and to

| 45 |

reduce the backlog, the OPD and the AGO worked together to make voluntary settlement conferences available to parties in the juvenile courts where they would have the greatest impact on the backlog of cases. The OPD and the AGO shared equally in the costs for retired judicial officers’ time to preside over these settlement conferences.

The PRP operates in 31 of Washington’s 39 counties. In a recent evaluation of the program, the PRP’s enhanced legal representation was shown to reduce the days to establishing permanency for children in foster care by speeding up reunification with parents, or where reunification was not possible, by speeding up permanency through guardianship or adoption. The program began in 2000 after the legislature directed OPD to implement a pilot program providing enhanced legal representation in the Pierce and Benton/Franklin juvenile courts. The pilot program addressed parent attorneys’ resource inequities, including a lack of practice standards, little or no investigative or expert resources, inadequate compensation, and high caseloads. In 2005 the PRP began expanding to other Washington counties.

Further information about the PRP program is available at www.opd.wa.gov.

shared Planning meetingsShared planning meetings provide opportunities for Children’s to engage families and youth in case planning focused on safety, permanency, and well-being. These meetings are scheduled at regular intervals during the time Children’s is working with a family:

• Pre-placement, when placement is a consideration in a case plan; • Within 72 hours of a child’s placement in out-of-home care and/or placement change

and always prior to a shelter care hearing; • Following shelter care and no later than 30 days prior to the fact-finding hearing; • Within 6 months of the child’s placement in out-of-home care;• Within 9 to 11 months of filing of dependency prior to permanency planning hearing;• Prior to reunification or when the child is exiting out-of-home care;• Every 6 months or until the child’s permanent plan is achieved or the case is closed;• Within 30 days of a termination of parental rights (TPR) referral to the assistant

attorney general;• Within 30 days after the court orders a TPR;• Within 10 days of confirmation of a dependent youth’s pregnancy;• When a youth is 17 ½ years old; or• When a child or youth is suspected or confirmed to be a commercially sexually

exploited child (CSEC).

http://www.OPD.WA.Gov

| 46 |

A parent or their attorney may request a conference or Shared Planning Meeting at any point in the dependency process. Participants in Shared Planning Meetings may include the child, parents, other family members, friends, caregivers, Tribes, members of the Local Indian Child Welfare Advisory Committee, community members, service providers, court appointed special advocates, guardians ad litem, attorneys, and others identified by the parents.

locAl initiAtives to imProve courtsFamily dependency treatment courtsThe Family Dependency Treatment Court (FDTC) program is designed to break the cycle of addiction and neglect and/or abuse through monitored service delivery and ongoing, expedited permanency planning. The FDTC uses a team approach to working with child abuse and neglect cases. The primary mission of the FDTC is to improve the lives of children and their families by addressing the problems resulting from substance abuse by a parent or caregiver. This mission is carried out by addressing the comprehensive needs of parents and children through an integrated, court-based, and multi-disciplinary team approach which strives to achieve timely decisions, coordinated treatment and ancillary services, judicial oversight, and safe and permanent placements. Judges, attorneys, child welfare services, and treatment personnel unite with the goal of providing safe, nurturing, and permanent homes for children while simultaneously providing parents the necessary support and services to become drug- and alcohol-abstinent. The FDTCs help parents regain control of their lives and promote long-term stabilized recovery to enhance the possibility of family reunification within mandatory timeframes.

Since the first FDTC in Washington was established in 1996, 878 parents have graduated with the hope of reunifying their family. Additionally, at least 39 drug-free babies were born to parents in these courts. Seventeen counties have FDTCs: Clallam, Clark, Cowlitz, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Lewis, Mason, Okanogan, Pierce, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston, Walla Walla, Whatcom, and Yakima.

In October 2015, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) awarded King County Family Treatment Court a three year grant of $975,000 to expand and enhance their services. This grant will enable the program to hire peer partners called Family Recovery Support Specialists as well as provide equivalent program services to south county residents. King County Family Treatment Court has organized and participated in a pilot project with Children’s and Seattle Community Colleges to provide college interns to assist with the backlog of visitation referrals for dependency court cases. This project started as a pilot in family treatment court, but may be expanding to serve other Children’s units in King County next year.

| 47 |

Family and juvenile court improvement ProgramThe Family and Juvenile Court Improvement Program (FJCIP), RCW 2.56.030, coordinates superior courts’ efforts on family and juvenile cases, to strategically implement principles of unified family court (UFC) which were adopted as best practices by the Board for Judicial Administration in 2005. The guiding principles for reform are based on the UFC strategies, as well as state and federal timelines related to processing dependency cases.

• The state provides FJCIP funding and framework to 13 superior courts to implement enhancements to their family and juvenile court operations that are consistent with UFC principles, including longer judicial rotations.

• The FJCIP allows flexible implementation centered on core elements including stable leadership, education, and case management support.

• The statewide plan promotes a system of local improvements.

• The demonstrated successes in FJCIP courts are a result of appointing judicial leaders to create actionable plans to enhance court operations.

• The FJCIP coordinators work closely with the assigned chief judge to implement local court improvements associated with UFC best practices.

• The system improvements that were not realistic prior to FJCIP funding have evolved to the point they are critical to the culture of family and juvenile court operations in those counties fortunate enough to have FJCIP.

Superior Courts receiving FJCIP funding are: Asotin/Columbia/Garfield, Clallam/Jefferson, Chelan, Island, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Spokane, Snohomish, and Thurston.

The FJCIP courts generally perform better than other courts on the timeliness measures reported herein, as previously discussed and seen in Appendix A.

The original FJCIP legislation, as drafted in 2007, contemplated Phase II of the FJCIP program to further implement court process improvements, but courts have been limited in moving toward this phase by lack of resources. In the 2015 legislative session, funding for a one family-one team, private-public partnership was provided to plan and design a grant-funded pilot project. The intent of the One Family One Team (OFOT) Pilot Court Project is to provide structure, support, funding, and evaluation to advance dependency court operations, consistent with UFC principles.

When funding is provided, the OFOT Pilot Court Project will operate up to four demonstration sites, where courts will implement the following practices:

| 48 |

• One Family One Team court model• Cross-training for team members• Trained judicial officer assigned to OFOT Court• Early Resolution Diversion Mediation Program

The FJCIP Oversight Committee was recently established to provide regular oversight and feedback to FJCIP courts to meet two currently unmet demands. First, the FJCIP chief judges, program coordinators, and administrators need information on best practice development for family, dependency, and juvenile court operations. As research and studies advance, court operations should be continually adapting to current developments. Second, the Committee will serve as oversight of deliverables of FJCIP courts and be able to provide feedback on how a program can target local improvements. Additionally, if a FJCIP court program is not meeting expected outcomes, the Committee can recommend remedial actions to promote the UFC principles.

The following describes some of the innovative programs FJCIP counties are implementing:

KING COUNTY—The FJCIP Coordinator worked with superior court information technology staff to modify the case management system to include ICWA identifiers (name of the tribe and whether the tribe has intervened) for dependency cases. This information appears on the Commissioner Report for each hearing so the commissioner has current ICWA information.

To increase dependency system workers’ participation and knowledge, five one-hour trainings over the lunch hour were held on the following topics:

• Dependency Early Resolution Case Manager• Visitation for Incarcerated Parents• LGBTQ Youth in the Foster Care System• Paternity Testing Pilot Project

An external SharePoint site was developed to include dependency stakeholders. The site contains information on current events, contact information, trainings, resources for forms, policies and procedures, reports and data, and information on King County dependency programs such as Dependency Early Resolution Case Manager, Dependency Mediation, Family Treatment Court, and Parents for Parents (P4P).

King County is expanding the P4P program to provide increased services to clients through a series of Dependency 201 classes in Kent. The P4P program participated in the Table of Ten project to increase visitation at the 72 hour shelter care hearing by problem solving visitation issues at the Family Team Decision Making meeting (FTDM) prior to filing. P4P parent allies presented this pilot project at a national conference in December 2015.

| 49 |

PIERCE COUNTY—Setting an earlier first review helps to ensure services have been referred. First review hearings are set approximately 90 days from the dependency petition filing date. Implementing this procedure has decreased median days to first review hearing from 135 days in 2013 to 108 days in 2015.

Status hearings are set by the judicial officer to address issues and barriers prior to the next review. Status hearings assist in moving the case forward and are typically set to ensure that Children’s has referred services and that providers and parents have followed up with the case plan.

Interim reviews are typically set in cases where the dependency was recently established, at the first review there was insufficient time to refer or engage parents in services, and a “reserved” finding was entered as to progress and compliance. Setting an interim review helps monitor the case and provides a more accurate record of progress and compliance findings.

Over the past three years, Pierce County has increased focus on the federal timeliness measurement of adoption completion within six months. Through changes made in practice, Pierce County has experienced a significant increase in timely adoptions from 34% compliance in 2013 to 63% compliance in 2015. The changes in practice include: assembling an adoption workgroup to address barriers; creation of a form to provide the court a “snapshot” of each case; frequent status hearings are set to ensure cases are on track; a spreadsheet was created to track all legally free cases and barriers; and adoption support applications are submitted for processing at least six weeks prior to the six month timeline.

In 2015, Pierce County launched the ACHIEVE (Adults Committed to Helping Improve Educational and Vocational Excellence) Pilot Project. This program pairs dependent teens with a specially trained CASA who also serves as a mentor. Often times, the plan for dependent teens is for long term foster care, or relative placement which may or may not become a guardianship, or return home to parents. While the teen’s placement provides for the basic needs and safety of the teen, placement care providers may not have the skills or knowledge to assist the teen in navigating pathways needed to become successful adults. This pilot project was created to help bridge this gap. ACHIEVE CASA-Mentors receive additional training focusing on how to help teens explore vocational school or college, connect teens to community programs, and assist them in becoming independent, successful adults. The goal of the ACHIEVE Pilot Project is to help dependent teens create a plan to achieve their goals.

For other FJCIP projects, see the Early Engagement Strategies section above for discussion of Best for Babies Pilot Project, Fathers Matter Outreach Program, Mediation, and Parents for Parents.

| 50 |

For a second year, the Court Improvement Training Academy (CITA) facilitated dependency training with a focus on the ICWA in December 2015 at the Port Madison Indian Reservation. Seven tribal court judges and eleven state court judicial officers participated in discussions about the differences between state and tribal dependency courts. Relationships were developed between tribal and state court judges as they learned together about trauma-responsive courts and peacemaking courts. The event culminated in a State-Tribal Roundtable hosted by the National American Indian Court Judges’ Association and Casey Family Programs. The Roundtable focused on the new ICWA guidelines.

The 3rd Annual Tribal State Court Consortium (TSCC) met on October 4, 2015, in conjunction with the American Judges’ Association and Washington State Fall Judicial Conference in Seattle. Thirteen tribal court judges and eight state court judges were in attendance. Two regional TSCC meetings were held in 2015 at Suquamish and Swinomish, where tribal court judges invited judicial officers from surrounding counties and tribes to learn about their tribal court and discuss issues of commonality. Other regional meetings will be held to further the collaborative efforts. A new website was created to support the efforts of the TSCC.

Children’s conducted an Indian Child Welfare Case Review in 2015 and anticipates the results will be available soon. The results will be presented at the Children’s Administration Indian Policy Advisory Committee (CA-IPAC) and a written report will be shared with stakeholders. Children’s will develop action plans at a local level which focus on areas identified as needing improvement. These plans will be developed with input from tribes and the CA-IPAC subcommittee. Children’s is also in the process of updating ICWA policy and procedures, and revising the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) to align with the federal and state ICWAs. Revisions to the policy and WAC are anticipated to be implemented by summer or early fall, 2016. Both these activities are expected to improve case timeliness and outcomes for Indian children, including caseworker practice and understanding of when ICWA applies.

indian child welfare Act (icwA) Projects

http://www.courts.wa.gov/?fa=home.sub&org=tscc&page=main

| 51 |

collAborAtion with other child welFAre PArtnersiv-e waiver and Family Assessment responseThe federal Department of Health and Human Services granted Children’s a IV-E waiver in 2012. As part of the waiver requirement Washington is required to conduct a demonstration project. Washington’s demonstration project is Family Assessment Response (FAR), a pathway to respond to low to moderate risk allegations of abuse or neglect. Families are assigned to the FAR pathway through a structured decision making tool at the point of intake. In FAR an assessment is conducted in partnership with the family. Families are provided with services to address needs. There is no subject identified and no findings of abuse or neglect are made. Families must agree to participate in FAR. Families who do not choose FAR are transferred to investigation. Both the FAR and investigative pathways focus on child safety. Children’s began implementing FAR in January 2014 in three offices and the program continues to be phased in across the state. Children’s has implemented the pathway in over 39 offices; 13 offices remain and it is expected that FAR will be fully implemented by the end of 2016. Children’s has been tracking CPS intake trends since January 2014. In calendar year 2015, 23,085 CPS intakes were screened to the FAR pathway. FAR workers filed dependencies due to child safety threats in the home in fewer than two percent of cases. Five percent of FAR intakes were reassigned to investigations because of safety concerns or because the family declined to participate in FAR. More information can be found at https://www.dshs.wa.gov/ca/advancing-child-welfare/family-assessment-response-far.

child and Family services review (cFsr)The CIP Director was invited by Children’s to attend several informational meetings about the third round of Child and Family Services Review (CFSR), including the Children’s Bureau Briefing for States. CIP will be an active partner as Children’s continues to move forward with program improvement processes to improve outcomes for children and families, both in preparation for the CFSR and under the Child and Family Services Plan and Annual Progress and Services Report. The CIP team will actively participate in the review and analysis of data and development of strategies related to court activities that impact child safety, permanency and well-being, as well as improvements in the case review systemic factor. The CIP Steering Committee will be informed throughout the process.

CIP will continue to work with Children’s on communication and education, focusing work in jurisdictions where areas for improvement have been identified, and helping to facilitate Children’s and court partner engagement. Children’s will develop an oversight committee to coordinate the work of groups that will focus on those identified specific areas. The CIP Director will be an ongoing participant in the oversight group. The CIP Steering Committee will be informed of the Child and Family Services Plan progress and will incorporate identified goals and activities into the CIP strategic plan as part of the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) process.

http://www.dshs.wa.gov/

| 52 |

children’s representation ProgramLegislation passed in the 2014 session requires the appointment of an attorney to represent a child in a dependency proceeding six months after the granting of a termination of parental rights (TPR) petition when there is no remaining parent with parental rights. The legislature appropriated money for the payment of legal services as long as counsel meet certain standards. The court may appoint attorneys for children at any time in a dependency action on its own initiative or upon the request of a parent, child, guardian ad litem, caregiver, or Children’s. The Office of Civil Legal Aid (OCLA) is responsible for implementation and administration of the program, including verifying attorneys are providing representation in accordance with the standards of practice and training recommended in the Meaningful Legal Representation for Children and Youth in Washington’s Child Welfare System, written by the statewide Children’s Representation Workgroup of the Washington Supreme Court Commission on Children in Foster Care. Since the implementation of this law in July 2014, OCLA established a children’s representation workgroup of judges, assistant attorneys general, juvenile court administrators, defense attorneys, and children’s advocates. OCLA has identified children who require attorneys under the new law, entered into contracts with approximately 100 attorneys statewide to represent these children and youth, developed a case activity reporting and oversight system, and has begun conducting oversight of Children’s Representation Program attorneys. OCLA also partnered with CITA, Center for Children and Youth Justice (CCYJ), the Mockingbird Society and other organizations to provide free trainings and has established a children’s representation listserv.

external Permanency cQi workgroupIn 2015 Children’s and AOC formed a workgroup with the goal of increasing the number of children achieving timely reunification and permanency. In addition to Children’s and AOC staff, the team consists of representatives from the Superior Court Judges’ Association, OPD, Washington State CASA, CITA, Office of Civil Legal Aid Children’s Representation Program, Tribes, Casey Family Program, and AGO. Initially the workgroup is looking at length of stay for children in out-of-home care by region and county to determine areas of focus.

The team is tasked with the following:

• Identify contributing factors to racial disparities in system processes;• Develop and finalize permanency CQI plan;• Identify and develop key permanency data measures for ongoing progress and

performance review. Include ability to breakdown by race/ethnicity in all measures;• Identify practice improvements to support timely filing/compelling circumstances;• Establish and act on interim targets for performance improvement;• Foster and maintain cross-agency perspective on permanency and permanency

improvements; and• Make recommendations as indicated.

| 53 |

Education Improvement EffortsCross-agency collaboration in the past few years has improved communication between OSPI, Children’s, and AOC. Technical assistance efforts have improved to provide support to school districts as they meet the unique needs of students in foster care.

The education chapter of the Washington State Juvenile Nonoffender Benchbook was updated in 2014. The revised chapter gives guidance to juvenile and family court judges for school placement decisions. In addition, to further assist judges, and to ensure they are considering all factors when ruling on change in placement, the Dependent Child’s Education Judicial Checklist was updated. The first section of the checklist is devoted to determine what efforts have been made to place the student in school, based on the best interest of the child. The checklist also includes questions about the child’s progress and post-secondary preparation.

OSPI’s Foster Care Program supports students in foster care by encouraging innovative practices that reduce educational disruptions, strengthen school stability, and improve academic performance. The Foster Care Program Supervisor works closely with Children’s, AOC, and other partners to coordinate efforts and reduce barriers to full participation for students in foster care. OSPI has further developed the Foster Care Program website, and continues to provide technical assistance and guidance to improve educational access and outcomes for students in foster care.

the commission on children in Foster careCo-chaired by a current or retired Supreme Court Justice and the Assistant Secretary of Children’s, the Commission on Children in Foster Care’s mission is to “[p]rovide all children in foster care with safe, permanent families in which their physical, emotional, intellectual, and social needs are met.” Stakeholders, including representatives from the courts, tribes, legislature, OPD, OCLA, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), AGO, foster parents, foster youth alumni, and Washington State CASA work to promote communication, collaboration, and cooperation. In 2012, the Commission on Children in Foster Care developed a compendium of best practices juvenile courts can utilize to improve case processing practices. The Commission promotes Adoption Day and Reunification Day celebrations throughout the state. The Commission also supports the annual Foster Youth and Alumni Leadership Summit, where foster youth and alumni are given a voice and an opportunity to exchange concerns, challenges, and suggestions for systems improvements. Policymakers, advocates, and community members work alongside youth to address the proposed reforms. More information regarding the Commission can be found at www.courts.wa.gov under Programs and Organizations – Commissions.

http://www.k12.wa.us/FosterCare/default.aspx

http://www.k12.wa.us/FosterCare/default.aspx

http://www.courts.wa.gov/

| 54 |

extended Foster careIn 2011 legislation was enacted establishing the Extended Foster Care program in Washington for youths ages 18-21 who were participating in or completing a secondary education program. Each year the legislature has expanded eligibility to include youths who are enrolled or have applied for postsecondary academic or vocational programs, participate in programs designed to promote employment or to remove barriers to employment, and engage in employment for 80 hours or more per month. In 2015 legislation expanded eligibility to include youth with a documented medical condition. This will become effective July, 2016. Enrollment in extended foster care continues to rise, increasing from 390 youth in January 2015, to 463 actively enrolled youth in Washington at the end of December 2015.

Foster youth and Alumni leadership summitCIP provides ongoing funding and support to the Mockingbird Society to sponsor the annual Foster Youth and Alumni Leadership Summit. Policymakers, advocates, and community members work alongside youth throughout the year to address the proposed reforms. The proposals are presented by the youth at the summit to the Washington State Supreme Court Commission on Children in Foster Care, legislators, and other stakeholders. The presentations combine research and data to describe problems the youth identify, personal experiences that underscore the impact of these problems, and thoughtful solutions that will improve the system. These proposals initiate a year-round effort to bring positive changes that will benefit those currently in foster care as well as those who have yet to enter the system.

The 2015 summit celebrated the 10 year anniversary of this youth leadership program. This year youth from across the state proposed the following reforms:

• Require LGBTQ sensitivity training for foster parents;• Increase access to an attorney for children and youth in foster care;• Create a host home-inspired community for youth in extended foster care;• Implement the Mockingbird Family Model in Pierce County;• Evaluate and create more oversight of group care; and• Increase foster youth access to the College Bound Scholarship.

While Children’s and OSPI have worked together to create an infrastructure that would enable the sharing of information for the purpose of better informing practice and improving educational services to students in foster care, the limitations imposed by confidentiality requirements in state statute prevent those efforts from coming to fruition. Despite these data-sharing barriers, OSPI, Children’s, and AOC continue to make every effort to collaborate wherever possible and are diligently working to resolve this issue.

| 55 |

unaccompanied minorsIn 2014 the AGO hosted a meeting regarding the increasing number of unaccompanied minors crossing the borders. Two non-profit organizations are training pro bono attorneys to represent unaccompanied minors and file petitions in state courts for nonparental custody, adoption, and dependency. A representative from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services presented on this topic at the 2015 Spring Conference of the Washington State Superior Court Judges’ Association. Through the leadership of the Washington Law Institute, a Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) benchbook and resource guide was developed to provide guidance for Washington court judges and commissioners seeking to navigate the state and federal laws related to SIJS. The benchbook provides a state court proceeding checklist, eligibility requirements, proceedings where this issue may arise, sample findings and order, and additional resources.

| 56 |

CHILDRen’SADMInISTRATIOn

relationshipsdedication

improvementswell-being

safety

permanency

outcomesassessment

visits partnerspractice

families

findingsimpact

joint effortsDSHS

RDA understandingreportsplacement

investigation

community

caseload

requirements

adoptions reunificationguardianship

transition

CQIcross agency programs

| 57 |

STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES CHILDREN’S ADMINISTRATION

PO Box 45040 ● Olympia WA ● 98504-5710 Children’s Administration (CA) appreciates the opportunity to contribute to the Administrative Office of the Courts’ annual Dependent Children in Washington State: Case Timeliness and Outcomes report. We greatly value our relationship with our court partners at the statewide and local level. These relationships are key in our work to achieve safety, permanency and well-being for the 8,500 children currently entrusted to our care. The dedicated staff in CA continued to make strides in improving outcomes for children and their families in 2015.

• Over 98 percent of children residing in out-of-home care or with their parent on a trial return home were seen every month by their social worker for a required health and safety visit.

• Over 46 percent of children residing in out-of-home care were placed with relatives and kin. • 3,590 children in the care of CA were reunified with their families. • 1,450 children in the care of CA were adopted into permanent homes, a number that has increased

every year since 2012. As we work together toward better outcomes for children and families, we continue to assess our practice and our working relationships. In 2015, we established an External Permanency Stakeholder’s Continuous Quality Improvement team with representatives from:

• Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) • Judiciary • Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) • Office of Public Defense (OPD) • Court Improvement Training Academy (CITA) • Office of Civil Legal Aid (Children’s Representation Program) • Attorney General’s Office • Indian Policy Advisory Committee (IPAC) • Casey Family Programs, and • Children’s Administration.

This team focuses on identifying practice improvements to support timely permanency and foster a cross-agency collective impact on permanency and court-system improvements. Our joint work has made it clear that all parts of the child welfare system have felt the impact of increasing caseloads, as well as families with seemingly more complex issues, over the last several years. While we are still endeavoring to understand this, we have provided some trend data along with preliminary findings from the DSHS Research and Data Analysis Division in the section below that may provide some understanding of these increases. I encourage all readers of this full report to utilize this rich data in assessing our joint efforts and guiding our practice improvements.

Sincerely,

Jennifer A. Strus, Assistant Secretary

Children’s Administration

| 58 |

Reports of Abuse and Neglect Have Increased Likely Impacting Child Welfare and Court Caseloads

Children’s Administration has experienced significant increases in Child Protective Services (CPS) reports of abuse and/or neglect since 2010, which increases the group of children who may be placed and have a subsequent dependency filed. Between December 2010 and December 2015, all reports of child abuse and neglect increased by 27 percent, and those requiring a face-to-face response increased even more. In December 2015, there were 3,076 CPS reports requiring a face-to-face response, a 48 percent increase over the 2,072 reports requiring a face-to-face response in December 2010, as displayed in Figure 1.

Figure 1 CPS Reports Requiring Face-to-Face Response by Year

Monthly View Shows Seasonality

SOURCE: DSHS Children’s Administration, FamLink, March 2016. Children’s Administration must respond to CPS reports requiring a face-to-face contact by seeing the child within 24-hours or 72-hours, depending on the severity of the alleged maltreatment. Reports of child abuse and neglect requiring a 24-hour response increased by 156 percent between December 2010 and December 2015, as seen in Figure 2. By contrast, reports requiring a 72-hour response increased by 24 percent during this same time period. The increase in reports requiring a 24-hour response is unprecedented in CA’s history and is one indication that the severity of child abuse and neglect allegations have also increased.

Figure 2 CPS Reports Requiring 24-Hour Response by Year

Monthly View Shows Seasonality

SOURCE: DSHS Children’s Administration, FamLink, March 2016.

| 59 |

Placement Rates Have Increased

Of children involved in a CPS report that screened-in for a face-to-face response, the percent of children who were placed into out of home care within 90 days of the initial intake increased from 9.4 percent in April-June 2010 to 12.2 percent in April-June 2015.

Permanency Continues to be a Focus

In spite of increased reports at the front end of the system and in the percentage of children who were placed, CA has continued to work in collaboration with the Courts toward safe permanency as quickly as possible for children who must be placed away from their families. As seen in Figure 3, reunifications have declined somewhat over the last two years. Adoptions historically increase during the last quarter of the year and there is some seasonality in reunifications as well.

Figure 3 Completed Permanent Plans

For any length of stay

SOURCE: DSHS Children’s Administration, FamLink, March 2016. Families with More Risk Factors at Initial Intake Show Increase in Negative Outcomes

Children’s Administration asked the Department of Social and Health Services Research and Data Analysis Division (RDA) to look at factors that may be impacting reports of abuse and neglect and subsequent placement. The analysis that follows identifies some preliminary findings that may explain some of these increases.

For the analysis, each family was assigned a Family Risk Score at the point of the CPS report, which was determined by the sum of any occurrence of:

1) Parent involvement with the criminal justice system, 2) Parent mental illness, 3) Parent substance abuse, 4) Family economic stress, 5) Domestic violence, or 6) Family homelessness.

A negative outcome was defined as a CPS report that had a new founded1 allegation or a placement within one year of case closure. Families with negative outcomes were analyzed in terms of their family risk score to determine if there was any correlation between the Family Risk Score and outcomes. Families with more risk factors at the time of the initial investigation experienced higher rates of new founded allegations and/or placements within one year after case closure, as shown in Figure 4.

1 “Founded” is a term used in a child protective services investigation to indicate that a determination has been made that abuse or neglect more likely than not occurred.

CPS cases with higher family risk scores experience higher rates of new founded allegations or placements within one year of case closure.

| 60 |

Figure 4

Percent of CPS Cases with a New Founded Allegation or Placement within One Year of Case Closure By the Family Risk Score at Initial Report

NOTE: Family Risk Score is the sum of any occurrence of 1) Parent involvement with the criminal justice system, 2) Parent mental illness, 3) Parent substance abuse, 4) Family economic stress, 5) Domestic violence, or 6) Family homelessness.

SOURCE: DSHS Research and Data Analysis Division, Client Outcomes Database, January 2016. Families with Multiple Risk Factors Have Increased

Associated with Increased Recurrence of Maltreatment

The number of families with multiple risk factors has increased in recent years and has been closely followed by an increase in the rate of recurrence of child maltreatment (subsequent founded allegation), as seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Trends in Family Risk Score and Recurrence of Maltreatment

By the Quarter of the Initial Report

NOTE: Family Risk Score is the sum of any occurrence of 1) Parent involvement with the criminal justice system, 2) Parent mental illness, 3) Parent substance abuse, 4) Family economic stress, 5) Domestic violence, or 6) Family homelessness. SOURCE: DSHS Research and Data Analysis Division, Client Outcomes Database, January 2016.

| 61 |

Families with Multiple Risk Factors Have Increased Associated with Increased Placement Rate

The number of families with multiple risk factors has increased in recent years and is associated with a sharp increase in the percent of children placed within 90 days of initial intake beginning in 2014, as seen in Figure 6. We expect that the combined outcome of the percent of CPS-investigated families with a new founded or placement within one year of case closure will also show an increase in the quarters to follow. With the recurrence measure shown in Figure 5, the year-long follow-up period begins at the time of initial intake. For the combined outcome measure (new founded allegation or placement within a year), the follow-up time begins much later, at case closure. Since cases can remain open for investigation and/or service provision for up to six months or longer, especially for families with multiple risk factors, there will be a longer lag time between increases in family problems and possible increases in this measure compared to the recurrence measure.

Figure 6 Trends in Family Risk Score, Placement Rate, and Post-Case Outcomes

By the Quarter of the Initial Report

NOTE: Family Risk Score is the sum of any occurrence of 1) Parent involvement with the criminal justice system, 2) Parent mental illness, 3) Parent substance abuse, 4) Family economic stress, 5) Domestic violence, or 6) Family homelessness.

SOURCE: DSHS Research and Data Analysis Division, Client Outcomes Database, January 2016. Joint Efforts Continue

Children’s Administration continues to work with our court and community partners to address the needs of the families and children we jointly serve. The increase in the number of families being reported to CA and the increase in families with multiple risk factors challenges the entire child welfare system in providing the level of response appropriate to the needs of the families and children. We are best able to address these needs with our combined efforts.

| 62 |

CHILD RePReSenTATIOnwell-being QIC-ChildRep

best practice

demonstration site

developcommunicate knowledge

Model of Representation

study

CCFC

outcomes

research analysis

support

trainingCCYJadvocate

counsel

attorneyssafetyskills

evaluation

assessment

CITA

legal

cooperationcase theory

| 63 |

Washington State Supreme Court Commission on Children in Foster Care

Supported by:

CO-CHAIRS Justice Bobbe J. Bridge (ret.) Washington State Supreme Court Ms. Jennifer Strus Asst. Secretary Children’s Administration WA State Dept of Social & Health Services MEMBERS Mr. Jim Bamberger Director WA State Office of Civil Legal Aid Ms. Beth Canfield Co-President-Board of Directors Foster Parents Association of WA State Mr. Mike Canfield Co-President-Board of Directors Foster Parents Association of WA State

The Honorable Harold D. Clarke, III President-Judge WA Superior Court Judges’ Association The Honorable Randy Dorn WA State Superintendent of Public Instruction

The Honorable Bob Ferguson WA State Attorney General Mr. Sabian Hart Foster Youth Representative Ms. Kristy Healing Northwest Inter-Tribal Courts The Honorable Ruth Kagi Chair Early Learning & Children’s Services Comm. WA State House of Representatives Ms. Jeannie Kee Foster Youth Alumni Representative Ms. Joanne Moore Director WA State Office of Public Defense Mr. Ryan Murrey Executive Director WA State CASA The Honorable Steve O’Ban Chair Human Services, Mental Health & Housing Comm. WA State Senate

In October 2009, the U.S. Children’s Bureau named the University of Michigan Law School the National Quality Improvement Center on the Representation of Children in the Child Welfare System (QIC-ChildRep). The QIC-ChildRep is a project to: gather, develop, and communicate knowledge on child representation; promote consensus on the role of the child’s legal representative; and provide one of the first empirically-based analysis of how legal representation for the child might best be delivered. Washington State was one of two Research and Demonstration sites nationally; Georgia was the other. Washington’s participation in the study was supervised by the Washington State Supreme Court Commission on Children in Foster Care. As staff to the Washington State Supreme Court Commission on Children in Foster Care, the Center for Children & Youth Justice coordinated Washington State’s participation in the study and full cooperation with efforts to measure the effectiveness of the QIC-ChildRep Best Practice Model of Representation. The model is largely based on the 1996 ABA Standards of Practice for Lawyers Who Represent Children in Abuse and Neglect Cases. Using a research study design, the QIC sought to answer the question whether training and support in the QIC Model would have an impact on attorney behaviors and case/child outcomes. Put another way, would attorneys practicing according to the QIC-ChildRep Best Practice Model change their practice and consequently improve safety, permanency and well-being outcomes for children involved with the child welfare system, relative to attorneys practicing “as usual”, that is, whose practice was not influenced by the model? Additionally, a smaller observational, non-experimental study was conducted in Washington to compare outcomes for children and youth who receive no legal representation with outcomes for children and youth represented by attorneys (the “Lawyer/No-lawyer Study”). Over one hundred Washington attorneys were recruited to participate in the study. Participating attorneys were randomly assigned to either the treatment group or the control group. Participation rates for treatment group and control group attorneys were consistently high during the three years of data collection. Treatment group attorneys participated in a 2-day training in the Six Core Skills of the QIC Model: Entering the Child’s World; Evaluating Needs; Advocating Effectively; Assessing Safety; Advancing Case Planning; and Developing Case Theory.

Washington State Supreme Court Commission on Children in Foster Care

Supported by:

CO-CHAIRS Justice Bobbe J. Bridge (ret.) Washington State Supreme Court Ms. Jennifer Strus Asst. Secretary Children’s Administration WA State Dept of Social & Health Services MEMBERS Mr. Jim Bamberger Director WA State Office of Civil Legal Aid Ms. Beth Canfield Co-President-Board of Directors Foster Parents Association of WA State Mr. Mike Canfield Co-President-Board of Directors Foster Parents Association of WA State

The Honorable Harold D. Clarke, III President-Judge WA Superior Court Judges’ Association The Honorable Randy Dorn WA State Superintendent of Public Instruction

The Honorable Bob Ferguson WA State Attorney General Mr. Sabian Hart Foster Youth Representative Ms. Kristy Healing Northwest Inter-Tribal Courts The Honorable Ruth Kagi Chair Early Learning & Children’s Services Comm. WA State House of Representatives Ms. Jeannie Kee Foster Youth Alumni Representative Ms. Joanne Moore Director WA State Office of Public Defense Mr. Ryan Murrey Executive Director WA State CASA The Honorable Steve O’Ban Chair Human Services, Mental Health & Housing Comm. WA State Senate

In October 2009, the U.S. Children’s Bureau named the University of Michigan Law School the National Quality Improvement Center on the Representation of Children in the Child Welfare System (QIC-ChildRep). The QIC-ChildRep is a project to: gather, develop, and communicate knowledge on child representation; promote consensus on the role of the child’s legal representative; and provide one of the first empirically-based analysis of how legal representation for the child might best be delivered. Washington State was one of two Research and Demonstration sites nationally; Georgia was the other. Washington’s participation in the study was supervised by the Washington State Supreme Court Commission on Children in Foster Care. As staff to the Washington State Supreme Court Commission on Children in Foster Care, the Center for Children & Youth Justice coordinated Washington State’s participation in the study and full cooperation with efforts to measure the effectiveness of the QIC-ChildRep Best Practice Model of Representation. The model is largely based on the 1996 ABA Standards of Practice for Lawyers Who Represent Children in Abuse and Neglect Cases. Using a research study design, the QIC sought to answer the question whether training and support in the QIC Model would have an impact on attorney behaviors and case/child outcomes. Put another way, would attorneys practicing according to the QIC-ChildRep Best Practice Model change their practice and consequently improve safety, permanency and well-being outcomes for children involved with the child welfare system, relative to attorneys practicing “as usual”, that is, whose practice was not influenced by the model? Additionally, a smaller observational, non-experimental study was conducted in Washington to compare outcomes for children and youth who receive no legal representation with outcomes for children and youth represented by attorneys (the “Lawyer/No-lawyer Study”). Over one hundred Washington attorneys were recruited to participate in the study. Participating attorneys were randomly assigned to either the treatment group or the control group. Participation rates for treatment group and control group attorneys were consistently high during the three years of data collection. Treatment group attorneys participated in a 2-day training in the Six Core Skills of the QIC Model: Entering the Child’s World; Evaluating Needs; Advocating Effectively; Assessing Safety; Advancing Case Planning; and Developing Case Theory.

| 64 |

Following the initial 2-day training, treatment group attorneys met quarterly in Communities of Practice to reinforce the Six Core Skills of the QIC Model and to discuss strategies for putting new knowledge into practice. The University of Washington School of Law Court Improvement Training Academy delivered the trainings and provided support to the Communities of Practice. Treatment group attorneys also participated in one-on-one coaching sessions with the QIC Resource Attorney. The Office of Civil Legal Aid provided the Resource Attorney. All QIC attorneys, both treatment and control group, responded to quarterly surveys regarding their practice behaviors, with an average response rate of close to 90%. The Administrative Office of the Courts Washington State Center for Court Research provided the University of Michigan Law School’s research team with access to the court records and child welfare data needed to complete the study. Preliminary findings indicate that Washington QIC treatment attorneys changed their approach to representing children in response to the Six Core Skills training and support. They used the six core skills in statistically significant ways when compared with the control group. QIC attorneys were more likely to develop a theory of the case, reassess child safety in the current placement, and spend more time talking and negotiating with others. Among other things, it appears treatment group attorneys tried to keep the cases moving not only with more motions but more non-adversarial case resolution strategies as well. However, the advocacy of treatment group attorneys was less likely to conform to the child’s wishes. With regard to child outcomes, preliminary study data show that children represented by treatment group attorneys in Washington State were 40% more likely to experience permanency within six months of placement than children represented by control group attorneys. When attorneys were introduced early in a child’s placement experience, children represented by attorneys who had received training in the QIC-ChildRep Best Practice Model were more likely to return home or to live with a relative within six months. This finding suggests that treatment group attorneys were better able to influence situations where the course of action was clearer (child should go home), and where the voice of the child may have had a stronger impact (child wants to go home). It suggests that treatment group attorneys were better able than the control group attorneys to address inefficiencies in the decision-making process in those situations.

| 65 |

Data collection is scheduled to end in March 2016. The final QIC study report detailing the results of one of the first empirically-based analysis of how legal representation for a child might best be delivered is expected in late 2016. For more information and study updates, visit the QIC Child Rep website at: http://www.improvechildrep.org/Home.aspx. Justice Bobbe J. Bridge (ret.) Co-Chair Washington State Supreme Court Commission on Children in Foster

| 66 |

ReCOMMenDATIOnSCLOSIng THOugHTS &

feedbackimprovement

monitoringcollaboration

evidence-based adjustments

children

continuityoutcomes

resolutions

trendsprocesses

analysis

identificationeffectiveness IDTRcooperation

future

strategies consistencycommunication

funding

enhancements

For the last eight years, this report has grown in depth, providing improved focus, visibility, and accountability on court processes involving dependent children. While progress has been made on many fronts in the child welfare system, there is much room for improvement. As this report is being written, Governor Jay Inslee is forming a blue ribbon commission to develop a cabinet-level department specifically designed for children: “We need crystal clear guidance moving forward to make sure we’re not just reshuffling the deck chairs but are truly making our children safer, healthier, more secure, and connected to adults who care about them.” The collaboration and cooperation among contributors to this report is essential to reaching Governor Inslee’s goals.

Data is the essential component in any improvements – from capturing key events in codes entered into computer systems – to compiling that data into understandable and usable reports – to using that reporting to inform identified weaknesses and design needed improvements. Continuous quality improvement assures that the processes around data continue to elevate overall performance and outcomes for children.

Adequate and stable funding for child welfare partners, including the courts, remains a laudable goal. In recent years, much focus has been directed to education, one of the measurable outcomes for dependent children. Other well-being factors as well as safety and permanence, must receive equal attention in assuring that dependent children can safely become productive, healthy adults.

Over the years, the recommendations in this report have remained substantially the same. With the establishment of a cabinet-level department for children, the authors and contributors to this report hope the themes apparent in the recommendations serve as a foundation for future improvements:

• Further strategic communication and collaboration among the courts and child welfare partners to build a system-wide view and assessment of children’s overall outcomes, including well-being.

| 67 |

• Develop improved consultation and communication strategies with child welfare partners concerning policy and programmatic changes.

• Prepare the way for routine access to information from schools and state agencies on important outcome measures, such as school performance, graduation, GED, post-secondary education, and employment.

• Promote consistency of data entry codes and procedures to produce robust and meaningful data and encourage child welfare partners to use that data to improve outcomes.

• Sustain and enhance inter-agency exchange of data among the courts, Children’s, and the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

• Close the gap created by the absence of data about services ordered and delivered.

• Provide adequate and stable funding for education, programmatic improvements, court process enhancements, and research efforts regarding dependency case management and children’s outcomes to make the above recommendations possible.

APPenDICeS

APPenDIx A: FjCIP

APPenDIx b: Demographics

APPenDIx C: County Level * Performance Measures * Outcomes & Demographics * Dependency Filings & Re-Dependency

AsotinChelanAdams

BentonClallam

ClarkColumbia

Douglas

Cowlitz

FerryFranklinGarfield

GrantJefferson

Island

Grays Harbor

King KitsapLincoln

Lewis

Klickitat

Kittitas

PacificOkanogan

Mason

Pend Oreille

Pierce

San Juan

Skagit

Skamania Snohomish

Walla Walla WahkiakumThurston

Stevens

SpokaneYakima

Whitman

Whatcom

Appendix A • Appendix A • Appendix A • Appendix A • Appendix A • Appendix A • Appendix A

PeRFORMAnCe OF THe FjCIP COuRTS On DePenDenCY TIMeLIneSS InDICATORS

77 77 73 71 71

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 15918

Percent of Cases with Fact-Finding within 75 Days

90 90 89 88 89

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 13163

Percent of First Dependency Review Hearings within Six Months

8991 92

88 91

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 11198

Percent of Cases with Permanency Planning Hearing within 12 Months

71 70 72 70 68

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 7321

Percent of Cases with TPR Filed before 15 Months of Out-of-Home Care

32 35 31 36 290

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 13024

Percent of Cases with Permanency before 15 Months of Out-of-Home Care

45 47 41 47 46

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 4321

Percent of Cases with Adoption Completed within Six Months of Termination Order

- - - - Statewide - - - - Statewide

- - - - Statewide

- - - - Statewide

- - - - Statewide

- - - - Statewide

Dependent Children in Washington: Case Timeliness & Outcomes - 2015 Annual ReportWashington State Center for Court Research

A

Appendix B • Appendix B • Appendix B • Appendix B • Appendix B • Appendix B • Appendix B

STATeWIDe DeMOgRAPHIC CHARACTeRISTICS OF CHILDRen In DePenDenCY CASeS


DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDREN IN DEPENDENCY CASES BY YEAR OF PETITION

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 26% 26% 27% 26% 27% (2) 1-2 yrs 16% 16% 15% 16% 16% (3) 3-5 yrs 18% 20% 18% 17% 18% (4) 6-11 yrs 23% 23% 25% 26% 24% (5) 12-17 yrs 16% 14% 14% 15% 15% (6) >17 yrs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Gender (1) Female 50% 49% 49% 48% 49% (2) Male 50% 51% 51% 52% 51%

Race (1) Native American 4% 5% 4% 5% 5% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% (3) Black 8% 7% 7% 9% 7% (4) White 54% 56% 55% 51% 52% (5) Hispanic 15% 13% 14% 17% 14% (6) Multiracial - Native American 8% 9% 9% 7% 7% (7) Multiracial - Black 7% 7% 6% 7% 7% (8) Multiracial - Other 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% (9) Unknown 0% 0% 0% 1% 3%

b

Appendix C • Appendix C • Appendix C • Appendix C • Appendix C • Appendix C • Appendix C

Appendix C • Appendix C • Appendix C • Appendix C • Appendix C • Appendix C • Appendix C

* Performance Measures

* Outcomes & Demographics

* Dependency Filings & Re-Dependency

COunTY LeveL DATA

c-1

c-2

Performance Measures • Performance Measures • Performance Measures • Performance Measures • Performance Measures Outcomes & Demographics • Outcomes & Demographics • Outcomes & Demographics • Outcomes & Demographics


< 20 Case Events 20+ Case Events

AdAms

45

22

47

30 320

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 77


7057 60

94

130

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 38


10080 80 71

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 35


Statewide

50 50

200

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 30


Statewide

21

55 56 55 58

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 57


Statewide

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 14


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide

Outcomes & Demographics • Outcomes & Demographics • Outcomes & Demographics • Outcomes & Demographics


c-3

AdAms

PERMANENCY OUTCOMES Outcome Values 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Adoptions Median Months 52 41.5 30 45 64 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Age of Majority/Emancipation

Median Months 24 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0%

Guardianships Median Months 6 % < 15 Months to Outcome 100%

Reunifications Median Months 19 0 11.5 10 4 % < 15 Months to Outcome 27% 86% 63% 100% 78%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Adams Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 43% 31% 56% 35% 33% (2) 1-2 yrs 25% 11% 22% 6% (3) 3-5 yrs 43% 13% 11% 22% 22% (4) 6-11 yrs 14% 25% 17% 22% (5) 12-17 yrs 6% 22% 4% 17% Gender (1) Female 43% 50% 67% 35% 50% (2) Male 57% 50% 33% 65% 50% Race (1) Native American 4% (4) White 29% 50% 22% 39% 44% (5) Hispanic 71% 38% 67% 43% 33% (6) Multiracial - Native American 13% 11% 17% (7) Multiracial - Black 13% (9) Unknown 6%

Dependency Filings & Re-Dependency • Dependency Filings & Re-Dependency • Dependency Filings & Re-Dependency


c-4

AdAms

0.0% 0.0%

11.8%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Adams

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Adams

(1) Prior Within 12mnths (2) Prior 13-24mnths (3) Prior >24mnths

DEPENDENCY FILINGS PER YEAR

Dependency cases filed during the year that had a PRIOR dependency case for the child that ended with a documented dismissal. Broken out by time to prior dependency in months. Includes priors within county only, and excludes dismissals documented as ‘Dependency Not Established’. Adoption disruptions leading to re-dependency are currently not available.

5

13

8

19

9

23

18

0.82.0

1.2

2.71.3

3.2

01234567891011121314

0

5

10

15

20

25

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Adams


c-6




Asotin

5539

6246

57

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 180


45

67

92

52

80

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 132


78

39

8770 72

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 104


Statewide

33

10090

47

240

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 50


Statewide

7155 58

3957

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 132


Statewide

17

100

67

200

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 22


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-7

Asotin


Adoptions Median Months 30.5 21 23.5 22 30 % < 15 Months to Outcome 25% 0% 0% 0% 0%


Median Months 37 31 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0%

Guardianships Median Months 2 9.5 5 11.5 17 % < 15 Months to Outcome 100% 100% 100% 50% 0%

Reunifications Median Months 1 12 12 10.5 14 % < 15 Months to Outcome 67% 72% 64% 69% 61%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Asotin Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 19% 24% 21% 17% 29% (2) 1-2 yrs 19% 26% 9% 25% 14% (3) 3-5 yrs 25% 12% 20% 22% 19% (4) 6-11 yrs 28% 32% 38% 19% 19% (5) 12-17 yrs 9% 6% 13% 17% 19% Gender (1) Female 47% 56% 48% 53% 29% (2) Male 53% 44% 52% 47% 71% Race (1) Native American 3% 3% 2% 8% 5% (4) White 75% 79% 86% 75% 62% (5) Hispanic 6% 7% 11% 10% (6) Multiracial - Native American 9% 2% 6% 14% (7) Multiracial - Black 22% 4% (8) Multiracial - Other 3% 10%



c-8

Asotin

1.9%

7.9%

4.8%

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Asotin

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Asotin




5

17

32 34

56

38

21

1.1

3.6

7.07.5

12.4

8.4

01234567891011121314

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Asotin


c-10




Benton

8878

67 6580

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 473


82 8495 91 88

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 320


100 96 9887 89

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 326


Statewide

3345

28

71

260

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 203


Statewide

2333

2034

240

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 505


Statewide

5741 41

75

300

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 100


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-11

Benton


Adoptions Median Months 27 24 31 35 37 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%


Median Months 37 24.5 36.5 34 64 % < 15 Months to Outcome 22% 33% 0% 0% 0%

Guardianships Median Months 33 24 31 14 17.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 18% 19% 38% 65% 21%

Reunifications Median Months 18.5 16 16.5 18 20 % < 15 Months to Outcome 34% 45% 30% 39% 37%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Benton Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 29% 29% 21% 27% 22% (2) 1-2 yrs 15% 9% 16% 17% 15% (3) 3-5 yrs 11% 19% 19% 17% 25% (4) 6-11 yrs 24% 25% 25% 27% 24% (5) 12-17 yrs 21% 18% 20% 12% 12% (6) >17 yrs 3% Gender (1) Female 55% 57% 64% 50% 49% (2) Male 45% 43% 36% 50% 51% Race (1) Native American 2% 3% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 1% (3) Black 3% 10% 5% 3% (4) White 45% 56% 48% 49% 54% (5) Hispanic 33% 27% 30% 37% 26% (6) Multiracial - Native American 8% 10% 4% 6% 6% (7) Multiracial - Black 10% 6% 5% 2% 6% (8) Multiracial - Other 1% 1% 1% (9) Unknown 1% 1%



c-12

Benton

0.0%

19.8%17.9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Benton

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Benton




117 115 109 109

82

107

68

2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 1.7 2.201234567891011121314

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Benton


c-14




ChelAn

91 96 87100

81

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 202


97 100 100 94 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 155


95 95 10094 98

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 130


Statewide

88100 97

73

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 122


Statewide

20 28 24 1790

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 169


Statewide

14

56

29 31

56

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 71


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-15

ChelAn




Median Months 75 48 88 44 23 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0% 0% 0% 33%

Guardianships Median Months 13 25.5 8.5 20.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 60% 0% 50% 0%

Reunifications Median Months 21 13 17 19 15 % < 15 Months to Outcome 26% 56% 0% 42% 31%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Chelan Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 35% 25% 34% 30% 31% (2) 1-2 yrs 12% 11% 16% 9% 23% (3) 3-5 yrs 8% 7% 13% 12% 26% (4) 6-11 yrs 31% 25% 21% 26% 10% (5) 12-17 yrs 15% 32% 16% 23% 8% (6) >17 yrs 3% Gender (1) Female 73% 50% 59% 49% 51% (2) Male 27% 50% 41% 51% 49% Race (1) Native American 4% 11% 9% 8% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 11% (4) White 50% 32% 54% 47% 59% (5) Hispanic 35% 21% 36% 23% 21% (6) Multiracial - Native American 12% 18% 5% 12% 10% (7) Multiracial - Black 5% 9% (8) Multiracial - Other 4% (9) Unknown 4% 3%



c-16

ChelAn

12.5%

7.1%

2.6%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Chelan

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

10%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Chelan




3640

2831

56

4340

2.0 2.21.6 1.7

3.2 2.401234567891011121314

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Chelan


c-18




ClAllAm

7967

8190 89

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 411


70 6579

84 88

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 267


83

61

92

62

96

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 218


Statewide

38 42 46 4833

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 161


Statewide

35 30

51 53

250

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 316


Statewide

2338 29 33 38

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 69


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-19

ClAllAm


Adoptions Median Months 35 30 26 25.5 31 % < 15 Months to Outcome 7% 8% 10% 0% 9%


Median Months 14 42 63 58.5 59 % < 15 Months to Outcome 100% 0% 17% 0% 0%

Guardianships Median Months 20 34 31 33 20 % < 15 Months to Outcome 20% 0% 25% 13% 25%



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Clallam Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 28% 22% 26% 34% 19% (2) 1-2 yrs 10% 19% 21% 16% 16% (3) 3-5 yrs 26% 23% 19% 14% 20% (4) 6-11 yrs 17% 19% 22% 28% 19% (5) 12-17 yrs 19% 17% 12% 8% 26% Gender (1) Female 54% 51% 48% 46% 51% (2) Male 46% 49% 52% 54% 49% Race (1) Native American 15% 9% 14% 29% 28% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 1% (3) Black 3% (4) White 63% 78% 61% 54% 54% (5) Hispanic 8% 4% 7% 11% 6% (6) Multiracial - Native American 12% 6% 12% 3% 9% (7) Multiracial - Black 3% 1% 3% 3% (8) Multiracial - Other 1% 2% (9) Unknown 1% 1%



c-20

ClAllAm

8.8%7.9%

20.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Clallam

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Clallam




56

78 78 74

117

77 80

4.3

6.0 6.1 5.8

9.2

6.1

01234567891011121314

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Clallam


c-22




ClArk

63 70 67 6354

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 1535


7970

9079 83

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 1059


73 6576

85 82

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 955


Statewide

48 54 5753 49

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 741


Statewide

32 29 24 21 200

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 1212


Statewide

33 3930

3829

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 296


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-23

ClArk


Adoptions Median Months 29 29 35 37 39.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 6% 2% 0% 2% 5%


Median Months 54 37.5 26 43 48 % < 15 Months to Outcome 24% 4% 16% 6% 9%




2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Clark Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 19% 23% 26% 21% 23% (2) 1-2 yrs 16% 14% 16% 15% 14% (3) 3-5 yrs 18% 16% 17% 20% 22% (4) 6-11 yrs 25% 27% 26% 27% 24% (5) 12-17 yrs 22% 20% 14% 17% 18% Gender (1) Female 48% 51% 52% 47% 51% (2) Male 52% 49% 48% 53% 49% Race (1) Native American 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 4% 1% 2% 3% (3) Black 1% 5% 6% 10% 3% (4) White 60% 68% 67% 57% 66% (5) Hispanic 26% 10% 8% 14% 8% (6) Multiracial - Native American 5% 5% 9% 6% 7% (7) Multiracial - Black 5% 7% 6% 7% 7% (8) Multiracial - Other 1% 0% 2% 3% 2% (9) Unknown 0% 1% 0% 3%



c-24

ClArk

6.9%

9.0% 8.7%

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

10%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Clark

0%1%1%2%2%3%3%4%4%5%5%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Clark




259

337360

303 307281

246

2.3 3.0 3.2 2.7 2.8 2.6

01234567891011121314

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Clark


c-26




ColumBiA

100

3325

5664

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 36


100

80 83

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 23


100 100 100 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 12


Statewide

14

50

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 11


Statewide

3317

50

7867

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 40


Statewide

50

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 9


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-27

ColumBiA






Reunifications Median Months 14.5 28 3 4 3.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 50% 0% 71% 88% 100%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Columbia Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 50% 67% 13% 20% 33% (2) 1-2 yrs 13% 20% 17% (3) 3-5 yrs 50% 38% 17% (4) 6-11 yrs 19% 20% 17% (5) 12-17 yrs 33% 19% 40% 17% Gender (1) Female 50% 100% 44% 40% 58% (2) Male 50% 56% 60% 42% Race (4) White 50% 67% 94% 100% 100% (5) Hispanic 50% (7) Multiracial - Black 33% 6%



c-28

ColumBiA

0.0%

20.0%

8.3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Columbia

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Columbia




14 14

2 3

16

5

12

16.7 17.0

2.53.8

20.7

6.5

012345678910111213141516171819202122

0

5

10

15

20

25

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Columbia


c-30




Cowlitz

6173

88

64 64

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 359


7583 89

69 75

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 255


8467

9882

75

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 202


Statewide

6351 50

36 38

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 180


Statewide

188

29 27 33

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 287


Statewide

54 52

12 110

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 111


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-31

Cowlitz




Median Months 36 66 37.5 42 49 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0% 17% 0% 0%


Reunifications Median Months 21.5 22 15 15 13 % < 15 Months to Outcome 39% 16% 46% 45% 52%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Cowlitz Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 33% 29% 33% 14% 32% (2) 1-2 yrs 17% 19% 18% 20% 15% (3) 3-5 yrs 15% 19% 17% 25% 18% (4) 6-11 yrs 15% 13% 13% 31% 26% (5) 12-17 yrs 20% 19% 18% 10% 9% Gender (1) Female 54% 50% 50% 46% 51% (2) Male 46% 50% 50% 54% 49% Race (1) Native American 7% 3% 3% (3) Black 7% 1% 4% (4) White 61% 75% 72% 66% 49% (5) Hispanic 15% 8% 15% 18% 13% (6) Multiracial - Native American 9% 6% 3% 6% 8% (7) Multiracial - Black 7% 12% 3% 10% (8) Multiracial - Other 3% 1% 9% (9) Unknown 1% 5%



c-32

Cowlitz

1.6%

5.2%

6.3%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Cowlitz

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Cowlitz




58

90

57 5764

99

81

2.33.6

2.3 2.4 2.7

4.2

01234567891011121314

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Cowlitz


c-34




douglAs

67

32 30

50 44

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 100


5040

57

100

61

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 82


93

40

8293

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 59


Statewide

5067

100

11

60

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 29


Statewide

60

13

45 55

100

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 67


Statewide

25

100

50

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 16


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-35

douglAs


Adoptions Median Months 64 27 22 55 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0% 0% 0%


Median Months 27.5 18 87 % < 15 Months to Outcome 50% 0% 0%


Reunifications Median Months 30 4.5 3 11 20 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 75% 69% 75% 25%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Douglas Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 33% 27% 21% 17% 29% (2) 1-2 yrs 33% 14% 17% 14% 17% (3) 3-5 yrs 33% 14% 8% 17% (4) 6-11 yrs 14% 42% 48% 33% (5) 12-17 yrs 32% 13% 21% 4% Gender (1) Female 33% 64% 38% 31% 38% (2) Male 67% 36% 63% 69% 63% Race (3) Black 5% 4% (4) White 67% 45% 42% 62% 58% (5) Hispanic 33% 45% 33% 38% 33% (6) Multiracial - Native American 5% 8% 4% (7) Multiracial - Black 13% (9) Unknown 4%



c-36

douglAs

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Douglas

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

10%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Douglas




8 8

4

2224

29

24

0.80.8 0.4 2.1 2.4 2.8

01234567891011121314

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Douglas


c-38




Ferry

71

93

70

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 44


100

25

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 28


44 50

89

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 27


Statewide

5067

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 23


Statewide

14 17

75

27

71

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 42


Statewide

100 100 100

50

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 9


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-39

Ferry


Adoptions Median Months 40 22 35 24 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0% 0% 33%


Median Months 54.5 115 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0%

Guardianships Median Months 15.5 36 12 % < 15 Months to Outcome 50% 33% 100%

Reunifications Median Months 17 20 12.5 39.5 8 % < 15 Months to Outcome 25% 33% 100% 25% 100%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Ferry Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 14% 38% 17% 16% (2) 1-2 yrs 29% 50% (3) 3-5 yrs 13% 16% (4) 6-11 yrs 43% 25% 33% 37% 100% (5) 12-17 yrs 14% 25% 32% Gender (1) Female 43% 25% 17% 37% (2) Male 57% 75% 83% 63% 100% Race (1) Native American 5% 100% (3) Black 13% (4) White 100% 75% 100% 89% (6) Multiracial - Native American 13% 5%



c-40

Ferry

16.7%

0.0% 0.0%0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Ferry

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Ferry




7

12

78

6

19

44.5

8.0

4.8 5.54.2

13.4

01234567891011121314

02468

101214161820

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Ferry


c-42




FrAnklin

9176 83

8974

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 266


7793 93

100 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 199


100 100 100 100 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 187


Statewide

14

40

1219 210

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 124


Statewide

21 2915

26 210

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 283


Statewide

7967

54

80

270

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 80


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-43

FrAnklin




Median Months 42.5 44 45 50.5 51 % < 15 Months to Outcome 25% 50% 20% 0% 0%


Reunifications Median Months 17 21 20.5 12 24.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 43% 39% 20% 56% 33%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Franklin Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 17% 14% 22% 14% 33% (2) 1-2 yrs 9% 17% 12% 14% 18% (3) 3-5 yrs 20% 23% 29% 19% 16% (4) 6-11 yrs 26% 24% 24% 37% 22% (5) 12-17 yrs 28% 22% 12% 16% 10% Gender (1) Female 65% 47% 39% 61% 63% (2) Male 35% 53% 61% 39% 37% Race (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 7% (3) Black 9% 4% 2% 2% (4) White 11% 18% 56% 16% 8% (5) Hispanic 72% 69% 37% 79% 80% (6) Multiracial - Native American 5% 4% 4% (7) Multiracial - Black 2% 9% 4% (9) Unknown 4%



c-44

FrAnklin

5.6%

0.0%

10.2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Franklin

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Franklin




66 66

46

79

42

5950

2.6 2.51.7

2.81.5 2.0

01234567891011121314

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Franklin


c-46




gArField

83

100

60

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 18


71

10080

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 7


50

100 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 6


Statewide

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 2


Statewide

100 100 100 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 19


Statewide

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 1


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-47

gArField


Adoptions Median Months 14 25 % < 15 Months to Outcome 100% 0%


Median Months % < 15 Months to Outcome

Guardianships Median Months 13 4 % < 15 Months to Outcome 100% 100%

Reunifications Median Months 10 0 2 2 % < 15 Months to Outcome 100% 100% 100% 100%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Garfield Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 33% (3) 3-5 yrs 67% 29% (4) 6-11 yrs 100% 29% 67% (5) 12-17 yrs 43% 33% Gender (1) Female 67% 50% 43% 33% (2) Male 33% 50% 57% 67% Race (1) Native American 33% (4) White 67% 100% 100% 67% (5) Hispanic 33%



c-48

gArField

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

10%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Garfield

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

10%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Garfield




1

7

32

7

42.1

15.4

6.7

4.5

16.3

01234567891011121314151617181920

02468

101214161820

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Garfield


c-50




grAnt

51

7768 59

68

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 503


79 86 88 86 84

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 352


10086 81

7491

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 311


Statewide

47 52

32 2415

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 231


Statewide

18

50

3524 20

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 405


Statewide

21 3 1933 140

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 120


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-51

grAnt


Adoptions Median Months 37 28 47.5 37.5 47 % < 15 Months to Outcome 10% 12% 7% 3% 0%



Guardianships Median Months 18.5 14 31 33 30 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 64% 11% 25% 0%

Reunifications Median Months 15.5 14 14 15 15.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 33% 57% 51% 42% 47%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Grant Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 21% 13% 36% 25% 24% (2) 1-2 yrs 26% 26% 20% 25% 23% (3) 3-5 yrs 23% 17% 18% 18% 13% (4) 6-11 yrs 23% 32% 18% 26% 22% (5) 12-17 yrs 6% 12% 7% 5% 16% (6) >17 yrs 1% Gender (1) Female 54% 58% 47% 46% 45% (2) Male 46% 42% 53% 54% 55% Race (1) Native American 1% 1% 2% 1% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 1% (3) Black 1% 2% 3% 2% (4) White 51% 62% 45% 49% 45% (5) Hispanic 40% 28% 42% 43% 37% (6) Multiracial - Native American 4% 8% 3% 1% 8% (7) Multiracial - Black 2% 1% 1% 1% (8) Multiracial - Other 1% 1% (9) Unknown 1% 1% 3% 5%



c-52

grAnt

8.7%

3.3% 3.3%

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

10%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Grant

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Grant




54

85

124

98 92 93 89

2.0 3.1

4.63.6 3.3 3.4

01234567891011121314

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Grant


c-54




grAys hArBor

7560

38 29 32

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 637


77

52

28 20

43

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 471


12 18 10 7 90

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 422


Statewide

47

71 63 5475

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 407


Statewide

17 19 18 20 100

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 588


Statewide

1724

10 10 210

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 299


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-55

grAys hArBor






Reunifications Median Months 16 17 20 17 25.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 43% 34% 31% 37% 33%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Grays Harbor Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 30% 34% 29% 48% 38% (2) 1-2 yrs 11% 13% 13% 11% 9% (3) 3-5 yrs 25% 22% 17% 10% 17% (4) 6-11 yrs 23% 20% 24% 17% 25% (5) 12-17 yrs 11% 11% 16% 15% 11% Gender (1) Female 44% 46% 42% 52% 47% (2) Male 56% 54% 58% 48% 53% Race (1) Native American 5% 11% 5% 7% 10% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 2% 3% (3) Black 2% 1% 2% (4) White 73% 48% 52% 61% 60% (5) Hispanic 6% 13% 18% 21% 13% (6) Multiracial - Native American 11% 20% 14% 8% 13% (7) Multiracial - Black 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% (8) Multiracial - Other 5% 4% (9) Unknown 1%



c-56

grAys hArBor

4.5%

1.9%1.1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Grays Harbor

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Grays Harbor




105

148139

127

158

11096

6.6

9.4 9.08.3

10.3

7.3

01234567891011121314

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Grays Harbor


c-58




islAnd

6959

53

71 76

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 171


83 93100 100

88

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 98


75 8172

9694

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 98


Statewide

38

13

44

86

36

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 65


Statewide

42 3444

29 27

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 166


Statewide

45 4023

3624

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 62


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-59

islAnd




Median Months 49.5 87.5 112 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0% 0%

Guardianships Median Months 28 0 15 23 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 100% 50% 0%



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Island Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 20% 17% 18% 18% 21% (2) 1-2 yrs 7% 21% 21% 21% 5% (3) 3-5 yrs 20% 31% 24% 10% 32% (4) 6-11 yrs 26% 21% 30% 28% 32% (5) 12-17 yrs 28% 10% 6% 23% 11% Gender (1) Female 46% 38% 70% 41% 47% (2) Male 54% 62% 30% 59% 53% Race (1) Native American 2% 3% 3% 5% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 3% (3) Black 4% 3% 12% 26% 16% (4) White 80% 62% 79% 46% 47% (5) Hispanic 7% 3% 3% 8% 21% (6) Multiracial - Native American 3% 3% 8% 5% (7) Multiracial - Black 7% 24% 3% 8% (9) Unknown 5%



c-60

islAnd

0.0%

12.8%

0.0%0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Island

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Island




3135

48

2934

39

26

1.9 2.13.0

1.8 2.1 2.401234567891011121314

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Island


c-62




JeFFerson

5262

5063 67

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 100


28

8183100

73

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 61


46

6380 76

80

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 45


Statewide

43 44

100

33 33

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 43


Statewide

65

3314 9

25

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 66


Statewide

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 12


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-63

JeFFerson





Guardianships Median Months 55 45 29 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0% 0%



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Jefferson Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 7% 18% 27% 9% 11% (2) 1-2 yrs 7% 19% 14% 11% (3) 3-5 yrs 14% 45% 4% 23% 17% (4) 6-11 yrs 29% 18% 35% 36% 39% (5) 12-17 yrs 43% 18% 15% 18% 22% Gender (1) Female 57% 64% 58% 59% 78% (2) Male 43% 36% 42% 41% 22% Race (1) Native American 36% 15% 14% 17% (3) Black 7% 23% (4) White 29% 82% 65% 41% 61% (5) Hispanic 21% 6% (6) Multiracial - Native American 9% 15% 23% 6% (7) Multiracial - Black 9% 4% 6% (8) Multiracial - Other 7% 6%



c-64

JeFFerson

3.7%

17.4%

0.0%0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Jefferson

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Jefferson




9

34

1411

2723

19

2.0

7.6

3.32.6

6.45.5

01234567891011121314

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Jefferson


c-66




king

67 7063

55 57

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 4288


86 89 82 79 75

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 2597


86 92 92 83 84

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 2136


Statewide

4253 46 43 40

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 1734


Statewide

28 35 34 38 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 2951


Statewide

39 34 3645 42

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 915


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-67

king




Median Months 36 38.5 32 46 55.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 16% 16% 17% 22% 8%

Guardianships Median Months 25.5 26 26 28 36 % < 15 Months to Outcome 20% 15% 8% 8% 14%



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 King Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 28% 26% 25% 25% 27% (2) 1-2 yrs 13% 15% 14% 14% 14% (3) 3-5 yrs 16% 22% 18% 16% 14% (4) 6-11 yrs 23% 25% 27% 26% 25% (5) 12-17 yrs 20% 13% 16% 19% 20% (6) >17 yrs 0% Gender (1) Female 51% 51% 48% 50% 47% (2) Male 49% 49% 52% 50% 53% Race (1) Native American 5% 5% 3% 3% 4% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 6% 3% 6% 6% 6% (3) Black 24% 20% 25% 21% 19% (4) White 32% 38% 30% 32% 40% (5) Hispanic 12% 8% 14% 17% 9% (6) Multiracial - Native American 10% 15% 9% 5% 6% (7) Multiracial - Black 10% 10% 11% 12% 10% (8) Multiracial - Other 2% 1% 2% 3% 3% (9) Unknown 0% 3%



c-68

king

4.6%

6.7%

3.7%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - King

0%1%1%2%2%3%3%4%4%5%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - King




608

796 831 843 885937

850

1.5 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.201234567891011121314

0100200300400500600700800900

1000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - King


c-70




kitsAp

69 72 7759 67

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 929


79 7888 81 84

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 616


88 91 89 92 86

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 549


Statewide

8174

82 7868

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 506


Statewide

33 2920 19 19

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 908


Statewide

24 10 6 12 250

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 329


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-71

kitsAp






Reunifications Median Months 10.5 16 17 19 16 % < 15 Months to Outcome 63% 46% 37% 38% 38%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Kitsap Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 29% 31% 28% 25% 23% (2) 1-2 yrs 18% 15% 13% 10% 15% (3) 3-5 yrs 19% 17% 20% 15% 20% (4) 6-11 yrs 18% 20% 20% 25% 21% (5) 12-17 yrs 16% 17% 18% 24% 20% Gender (1) Female 52% 50% 47% 49% 53% (2) Male 48% 50% 53% 51% 47% Race (1) Native American 1% 5% 4% 5% 2% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 3% 1% 2% 1% (3) Black 10% 7% 5% 1% 4% (4) White 60% 71% 58% 53% 57% (5) Hispanic 9% 5% 7% 11% 8% (6) Multiracial - Native American 8% 6% 12% 11% 12% (7) Multiracial - Black 4% 5% 10% 13% 8% (8) Multiracial - Other 5% 2% 4% 5% 5% (9) Unknown 3%



c-72

kitsAp

5.7%

3.7%

6.5%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Kitsap

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Kitsap




157

283

201174 166 170

239

2.7

5.03.6

3.2 3.1 3.1

01234567891011121314

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Kitsap


c-74




kittitAs

48

13

48

76

41

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 158


15

7381

31 330

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 110


27

54

95

71

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 88


Statewide

3046 43

69

43

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 70


Statewide

13 10

38 3221

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 130


Statewide

13

43

20 170

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 40


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-75

kittitAs


Adoptions Median Months 52 37 36.5 44 32 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%



Guardianships Median Months 19 6 20.5 24 12.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 25% 100% 0% 40% 50%

Reunifications Median Months 20.5 24.5 21 10.5 16 % < 15 Months to Outcome 17% 30% 33% 56% 46%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Kittitas Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 14% 15% 30% 6% 37% (2) 1-2 yrs 7% 8% 26% 18% 19% (3) 3-5 yrs 21% 35% 13% 18% 11% (4) 6-11 yrs 31% 19% 22% 44% 26% (5) 12-17 yrs 28% 23% 9% 15% 7% Gender (1) Female 59% 50% 48% 53% 48% (2) Male 41% 50% 52% 47% 52% Race (1) Native American 4% (3) Black 7% (4) White 72% 77% 52% 74% 81% (5) Hispanic 7% 23% 9% 12% 7% (6) Multiracial - Native American 10% 26% 15% (7) Multiracial - Black 13% (8) Multiracial - Other 3% (9) Unknown 7%



c-76

kittitAs

3.7%

0.0%

3.3%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Kittitas

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Kittitas




24

3331 30

28

3430

3.24.4 4.2 3.9

3.5 4.1

01234567891011121314

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Kittitas


c-78




kliCkitAt

9

3827

3818

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 105


3520 14 25

71

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 56


100100

86

100 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 47


Statewide

100

67

30

80

92

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 33


Statewide

75

50

57 64

380

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 52


Statewide

67

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 6


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-79

kliCkitAt




Median Months 17 27 37 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0% 0%


Reunifications Median Months 1 7 5.5 8 11.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 100% 71% 100% 75% 67%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Klickitat Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 20% 5% 19% 28% 26% (2) 1-2 yrs 20% 5% 19% 17% 32% (3) 3-5 yrs 20% 25% 31% 17% 11% (4) 6-11 yrs 20% 25% 19% 21% 32% (5) 12-17 yrs 20% 40% 13% 17% Gender (1) Female 60% 50% 25% 45% 32% (2) Male 40% 50% 75% 55% 68% Race (1) Native American 15% 6% 21% 11% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 5% (4) White 70% 30% 88% 55% 42% (5) Hispanic 40% 6% 3% 11% (6) Multiracial - Native American 20% 5% 21% 5% (7) Multiracial - Black 26% (9) Unknown 10% 5% 5%



c-80

kliCkitAt

0.0%

10.3%

4.3%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Klickitat

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Klickitat




17

23

15

22

17

2927

3.75.1

3.45.1

4.0

6.8

01234567891011121314

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Klickitat


c-82




lewis

83 7393 90

67

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 263


96 93 93 92 79

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 202


90 97 98 100 98

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 174


Statewide

33 39

7653

160

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 139


Statewide

15 13 21 1439

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 233


Statewide

15 1930

120

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 92


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-83

lewis


Adoptions Median Months 42.5 33 25 28 42.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0% 14% 0% 0%



Guardianships Median Months 16 23 31 28.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 29% 0% 0% 50%



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Lewis Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 31% 25% 31% 22% 13% (2) 1-2 yrs 20% 25% 27% 16% 20% (3) 3-5 yrs 12% 27% 10% 29% 16% (4) 6-11 yrs 18% 9% 13% 24% 30% (5) 12-17 yrs 18% 14% 19% 9% 22% Gender (1) Female 47% 57% 40% 48% 44% (2) Male 53% 43% 60% 52% 56% Race (1) Native American 2% 3% 11% (4) White 65% 70% 85% 66% 72% (5) Hispanic 12% 2% 13% 9% 8% (6) Multiracial - Native American 16% 20% 2% 16% 5% (7) Multiracial - Black 2% 7% 3% 2% (8) Multiracial - Other 2% 3% 3%



c-84

lewis

4.2%

1.6% 1.4%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Lewis

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Lewis




28

6052

4449

6470

1.6

3.4 3.02.6 2.9

3.8

01234567891011121314

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Lewis


c-86




linColn

44 50

80

29 200

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 33


86

50

70

100 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 20


100

40 33 33

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 16


Statewide

100

250

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 8


Statewide

100

86

33

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 19


Statewide

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 1


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-87

linColn


Adoptions Median Months 25 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0%






2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Lincoln Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 14% 40% (2) 1-2 yrs 14% 14% 25% 20% (3) 3-5 yrs 29% 14% 29% 50% 20% (4) 6-11 yrs 14% 57% 43% (5) 12-17 yrs 29% 29% 14% 25% 20% Gender (1) Female 29% 71% 57% 50% 40% (2) Male 71% 29% 43% 50% 60% Race (4) White 100% 100% 86% 75% 80% (6) Multiracial - Native American 14% (7) Multiracial - Black 25% 20%



c-88

linColn

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Lincoln

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Lincoln




5 5

7 7 7

4

6

2.1 2.13.0 3.0 3.1

1.801234567891011121314

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Lincoln


c-90




mAson

91 9182 82

84

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015n = 392


83 94

100

85 95

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 275


10093 98 94 95

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 215


Statewide

70 7158

83

75

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 153


Statewide

3722 25

3727

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 299


Statewide

34

6 13 80

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 89


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-91

mAson




Median Months 45 42 40.5 54 13 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 33% 13% 25% 50%


Reunifications Median Months 13 20.5 16.5 11.5 17 % < 15 Months to Outcome 71% 29% 38% 52% 36%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Mason Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 35% 27% 38% 24% 28% (2) 1-2 yrs 4% 9% 15% 24% 9% (3) 3-5 yrs 14% 22% 19% 14% 15% (4) 6-11 yrs 18% 25% 20% 25% 29% (5) 12-17 yrs 29% 17% 8% 12% 19% Gender (1) Female 51% 53% 59% 52% 57% (2) Male 49% 47% 41% 48% 43% Race (1) Native American 6% 11% 11% 8% 1% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 1% (3) Black 4% 2% 1% (4) White 69% 66% 63% 53% 69% (5) Hispanic 14% 14% 16% 24% 19% (6) Multiracial - Native American 6% 8% 8% 6% 6% (7) Multiracial - Black 1% (8) Multiracial - Other 5% 1% (9) Unknown 4% 2%



c-92

mAson

9.3%

7.1%

3.0%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Mason

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Mason




59 6350

64

89 86

102

4.8 5.14.1

5.2

7.3 7.1

01234567891011121314

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Mason


c-94




okAnogAn

97

58

91

41

66

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 183


100 100

8772

63

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 142


68

97 96 8494

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 112


Statewide

19 4200

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 71


Statewide

374 14

57

310

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 101


Statewide

29

80

170

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 32


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-95

okAnogAn


Adoptions Median Months 29 42 21 31.5 31.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 11% 0% 0% 0% 8%




Reunifications Median Months 14 8 10 20.5 22 % < 15 Months to Outcome 56% 80% 57% 6% 22%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Okanogan Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 16% 28% 29% 25% 20% (2) 1-2 yrs 20% 15% 21% 15% 11% (3) 3-5 yrs 8% 5% 11% 18% 33% (4) 6-11 yrs 40% 33% 29% 33% 22% (5) 12-17 yrs 16% 18% 11% 10% 13% Gender (1) Female 44% 56% 54% 58% 44% (2) Male 56% 44% 46% 43% 56% Race (1) Native American 8% 21% 11% 5% 11% (3) Black 7% (4) White 64% 62% 50% 55% 40% (5) Hispanic 8% 18% 11% 35% 22% (6) Multiracial - Native American 20% 7% 3% 18% (7) Multiracial - Black 11% (8) Multiracial - Other 4% 3% 2% (9) Unknown 7%



c-96

okAnogAn

0.0%

2.5%

11.1%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Okanogan

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Okanogan




2327 26

39

28

4146

2.3 2.8 2.74.1

2.94.3

01234567891011121314

05

101520253035404550

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Okanogan


c-98




pACiFiC

8668

8489

69

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 101


74

100

88 94 92

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 75


9076

9283 87

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 80


Statewide

78

63

100

58

79

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 55


Statewide

14 52613 90

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 89


Statewide

55

14 20100

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 43


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-99

pACiFiC




Median Months 13 90 39 83 25.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Guardianships Median Months 3 56 % < 15 Months to Outcome 100% 0%

Reunifications Median Months 14.5 15.5 21 24 21 % < 15 Months to Outcome 50% 33% 0% 18% 10%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Pacific Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 15% 36% 40% 50% 47% (2) 1-2 yrs 25% 14% 12% 11% 13% (3) 3-5 yrs 45% 18% 12% 17% 27% (4) 6-11 yrs 15% 18% 28% 17% 13% (5) 12-17 yrs 14% 8% 6% Gender (1) Female 55% 41% 44% 39% 33% (2) Male 45% 59% 56% 61% 67% Race (1) Native American 5% 7% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 8% (3) Black 5% (4) White 70% 55% 48% 89% 87% (5) Hispanic 15% 36% 20% 11% 7% (6) Multiracial - Native American 5% 5% 24% (8) Multiracial - Other 5%



c-100

pACiFiC

8.7%

0.0% 0.0%0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Pacific

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Pacific




16 16

21 2225

19

15

4.2 4.3

5.8 6.16.9

5.3

01234567891011121314

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Pacific


c-102




pend oreille

30 2538 35

67

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 92


45

62

46

70

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 59


38

7565

25

90

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 55


Statewide

40 50

85

50

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 42


Statewide

33 3642

290

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 67


Statewide

50 50 43

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 25


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-103

pend oreille


Adoptions Median Months 32 49.5 43.5 20 40 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%


Median Months 78 68 53.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0% 0%


Reunifications Median Months 17 5 9 17.5 32.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 50% 80% 63% 50% 0%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Pend Oreille Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 13% 12% 20% 25% 11% (2) 1-2 yrs 22% 12% 20% 25% 37% (3) 3-5 yrs 26% 18% 25% 25% 32% (4) 6-11 yrs 22% 29% 10% 25% 21% (5) 12-17 yrs 17% 29% 25% Gender (1) Female 30% 47% 20% 67% 32% (2) Male 70% 53% 80% 33% 68% Race (4) White 78% 76% 75% 83% 95% (5) Hispanic 4% 20% (6) Multiracial - Native American 13% 24% 8% (7) Multiracial - Black 5% 8% (9) Unknown 4% 5%



c-104

pend oreille

5.3%

26.7%

0.0%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Pend Oreille

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Pend Oreille




12

19

24

20 20

15

19

4.2

6.8

8.87.5 7.6

5.8

01234567891011121314

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Pend Oreille


c-106




pierCe

92 89 86 90 83

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 3316


94 96 92 94 96

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 2429


92 95 95 94 98

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 2136


Statewide

86 83 85 87 84

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 1776


Statewide

31 25 2030 28

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 2969


Statewide

36 36 3452

63

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 1030


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-107

pierCe








2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Pierce Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 29% 27% 29% 27% 27% (2) 1-2 yrs 17% 18% 13% 15% 16% (3) 3-5 yrs 16% 23% 18% 17% 18% (4) 6-11 yrs 23% 21% 25% 26% 25% (5) 12-17 yrs 15% 12% 15% 15% 15% (6) >17 yrs 0% Gender (1) Female 52% 48% 47% 49% 51% (2) Male 48% 52% 53% 51% 49% Race (1) Native American 3% 2% 3% 4% 2% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 3% 2% 4% 5% (3) Black 16% 14% 10% 16% 14% (4) White 47% 50% 53% 50% 44% (5) Hispanic 10% 11% 7% 6% 9% (6) Multiracial - Native American 7% 6% 9% 6% 6% (7) Multiracial - Black 12% 10% 11% 10% 13% (8) Multiracial - Other 3% 4% 4% 2% 3% (9) Unknown 1% 1% 4%



c-108

pierCe

4.4%

6.7%

5.2%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Pierce

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Pierce




593

914

607 605 645

770711

3.04.6

3.1 3.1 3.33.9

01234567891011121314

0100200300400500600700800900

1000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Pierce


c-110




sAn JuAn

33

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 23


33

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 13


100 100 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 7


Statewide

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 7


Statewide

100

20

100

200

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 12


Statewide

100 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 6


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-111

sAn JuAn





Guardianships Median Months % < 15 Months to Outcome

Reunifications Median Months 0 19 10 5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 100% 50% 100% 100%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 San Juan Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 20% (2) 1-2 yrs 33% (3) 3-5 yrs 20% 8% (4) 6-11 yrs 33% 60% 77% (5) 12-17 yrs 33% 100% 15% Gender (1) Female 100% 69% (2) Male 100% 100% 31% Race (4) White 67% 20% 85% (5) Hispanic 33% 8% (6) Multiracial - Native American 80% 8% (8) Multiracial - Other 100%



c-112

sAn JuAn

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - San Juan

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - San Juan




3 3

1

6

13

1.2 1.2 0.42.6

01234567891011121314

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - San Juan


c-114




skAgit

45

80 8087

75

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 448


6174

10090 83

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 318


8273

10093 96

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 260


Statewide

75 7580

56

76

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 279


Statewide

35 30 3221 27

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 409


Statewide

60 58 56

7461

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 162


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-115

skAgit





Guardianships Median Months 41 29 28 21.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 18% 20% 13% 25%



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Skagit Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 17% 28% 36% 26% 29% (2) 1-2 yrs 19% 17% 10% 23% 15% (3) 3-5 yrs 13% 23% 23% 14% 15% (4) 6-11 yrs 24% 22% 17% 23% 16% (5) 12-17 yrs 27% 10% 14% 15% 24% Gender (1) Female 45% 49% 47% 50% 54% (2) Male 55% 51% 53% 50% 46% Race (1) Native American 5% 18% 16% 5% 9% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 4% (3) Black 1% 1% 1% (4) White 64% 66% 56% 66% 46% (5) Hispanic 21% 7% 11% 17% 20% (6) Multiracial - Native American 7% 3% 11% 8% 13% (7) Multiracial - Black 1% 2% 4% 1% 4% (8) Multiracial - Other 1% 3% 1% 3% (9) Unknown 1%



c-116

skAgit

2.7%

14.6%

7.5%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Skagit

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Skagit




58

130

90 91

73

89 95

2.1

4.73.3 3.4 2.7

3.3

01234567891011121314

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Skagit


c-118




skAmAniA

29 21

47

727

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 65


7364

270

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 42


50

75

110

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 31


Statewide

25

67

14

33

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 21


Statewide

71

33

80

380

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 47


Statewide

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 4


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-119

skAmAniA




Median Months 96 17 50 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0% 0%




2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Skamania Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 43% 17% 46% 21% (2) 1-2 yrs 14% 17% 8% 17% 21% (3) 3-5 yrs 17% 8% 8% 29% (4) 6-11 yrs 29% 17% 23% 58% 29% (5) 12-17 yrs 14% 33% 15% 17% Gender (1) Female 57% 33% 54% 67% 21% (2) Male 43% 67% 46% 33% 79% Race (1) Native American 8% 7% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 14% (4) White 86% 67% 92% 92% 86% (5) Hispanic 17% (6) Multiracial - Native American 8% (7) Multiracial - Black 8% 8% (8) Multiracial - Other 7%



c-120

skAmAniA

0.0%

23.1%

18.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Skamania

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Skamania




12

19

7

14 13 13

16

4.9

7.7

2.9

5.9 5.6 5.6

01234567891011121314

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Skamania


c-122




snohomish

73 7669

7372

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 2351


92 85 86 90 91

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 1571


86 85 84 82 85

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 1389


Statewide

7672

80 87 85

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 1224


Statewide

26 31 22 29 210

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 2060


Statewide

57 62 60 60

35

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 847


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-123

snohomish




Median Months 53 48 54.5 22 31.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 13% 9% 10% 22% 8%




2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Snohomish Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 24% 23% 24% 31% 31% (2) 1-2 yrs 20% 17% 16% 16% 15% (3) 3-5 yrs 22% 22% 21% 18% 19% (4) 6-11 yrs 26% 25% 26% 24% 23% (5) 12-17 yrs 9% 13% 13% 12% 12% Gender (1) Female 51% 45% 51% 44% 48% (2) Male 49% 55% 49% 56% 52% Race (1) Native American 6% 5% 5% 8% 6% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 5% 2% 1% 1% 2% (3) Black 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% (4) White 55% 59% 62% 61% 60% (5) Hispanic 12% 16% 12% 13% 12% (6) Multiracial - Native American 9% 7% 6% 5% 6% (7) Multiracial - Black 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% (8) Multiracial - Other 3% 1% 3% 1% 3% (9) Unknown 0% 0% 3%



c-124

snohomish

6.0%

8.4% 8.5%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Snohomish

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Snohomish




387

455 430

511 495445

472

2.2 2.6 2.5 3.0 2.9 2.6

01234567891011121314

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Snohomish


c-126




spokAne

78 77 74 71 75

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 3126


98 96 98 96 96

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 2140


96 95 96 98 96

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 1814


Statewide

8176

8071

74

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 1281


Statewide

45 53 44 4737

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 2620


Statewide

72 71 6656 56

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 766


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-127

spokAne





Guardianships Median Months 15 13.5 15 14 20 % < 15 Months to Outcome 49% 60% 48% 53% 25%



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Spokane Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 31% 29% 29% 27% 28% (2) 1-2 yrs 18% 18% 18% 16% 20% (3) 3-5 yrs 18% 21% 19% 17% 18% (4) 6-11 yrs 21% 21% 24% 28% 23% (5) 12-17 yrs 11% 11% 11% 12% 10% (6) >17 yrs 1% Gender (1) Female 44% 49% 49% 46% 49% (2) Male 56% 51% 51% 54% 51% Race (1) Native American 2% 4% 4% 7% 6% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% (3) Black 3% 6% 2% 6% 5% (4) White 67% 64% 67% 55% 59% (5) Hispanic 4% 5% 5% 9% 7% (6) Multiracial - Native American 12% 11% 14% 11% 11% (7) Multiracial - Black 10% 8% 7% 7% 8% (8) Multiracial - Other 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% (9) Unknown 0% 0% 0% 2% 1%



c-128

spokAne

10.7%11.8%

10.1%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Spokane

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Spokane




469512

586634

751

616544

4.3 4.75.3 5.8

6.85.6

01234567891011121314

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Spokane


c-130




stevens

65 69 6676

62

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 210


8090 96

58

38

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 154


7893 100 97 86

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 147


Statewide

39

63 5666 70

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 131


Statewide

25 2512 11 21

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 206


Statewide

61

8163

72

130

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 85


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-131

stevens


Adoptions Median Months 32.5 21 23 17 20 % < 15 Months to Outcome 14% 17% 16% 21% 12%



Guardianships Median Months 21 33 16 36 % < 15 Months to Outcome 23% 0% 0% 33%



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Stevens Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 25% 17% 21% 27% 22% (2) 1-2 yrs 16% 17% 3% 10% 13% (3) 3-5 yrs 18% 17% 21% 10% 22% (4) 6-11 yrs 32% 34% 37% 37% 28% (5) 12-17 yrs 11% 15% 18% 17% 16% Gender (1) Female 53% 45% 34% 57% 50% (2) Male 47% 55% 66% 43% 50% Race (1) Native American 2% 3% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 3% (3) Black 6% 3% (4) White 74% 79% 79% 73% 69% (5) Hispanic 7% 9% 13% 3% 9% (6) Multiracial - Native American 18% 6% 5% 23% 6% (8) Multiracial - Other 9%



c-132

stevens

2.4%

6.9%

9.4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Stevens

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Stevens




35

58 59

4741

30 32

3.3

5.5 5.84.8 4.3

3.2

01234567891011121314

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Stevens


c-134




thurston

91 89

82 7363

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 790


98 87 86 88 87

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 492


7592 89

7987

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 396


Statewide

63 64 6756

81

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 346


Statewide

28 30 41 37 35

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 608


Statewide

286

30 3450

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 188


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-135

thurston


Adoptions Median Months 30.5 22 28 26 28.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 6% 18% 6% 7% 5%




Reunifications Median Months 15 17.5 13 10.5 15.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 50% 37% 61% 56% 47%


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Thurston Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 25% 34% 33% 27% 25% (2) 1-2 yrs 16% 18% 9% 14% 20% (3) 3-5 yrs 17% 15% 9% 19% 15% (4) 6-11 yrs 21% 15% 30% 23% 24% (5) 12-17 yrs 21% 18% 19% 18% 16% Gender (1) Female 43% 46% 50% 45% 50% (2) Male 57% 54% 50% 55% 50% Race (1) Native American 1% 8% 4% 4% 2% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 2% 4% 1% 1% (3) Black 2% 3% 4% 8% 3% (4) White 71% 53% 65% 63% 68% (5) Hispanic 12% 8% 11% 11% 7% (6) Multiracial - Native American 2% 14% 4% 4% 8% (7) Multiracial - Black 9% 7% 4% 5% 5% (8) Multiracial - Other 3% 3% 1% 1% 2% (9) Unknown 1% 1% 3% 2% 3%



c-136

thurston

4.0%

7.0%5.4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Thurston

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Thurston




90108

160

133150

160184

1.6 1.92.8 2.3 2.6 2.7

01234567891011121314

020406080

100120140160180200220

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Thurston


c-138




wAhkiAkum

100 100 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 4


100 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 3


100 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 3


Statewide

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 2


Statewide

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 3


Statewide

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 2


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-139

wAhkiAkum


Adoptions Median Months 37 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0%




Reunifications Median Months % < 15 Months to Outcome


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Wahkiakum Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 50% (2) 1-2 yrs 50% (5) 12-17 yrs 100% 100% 100% Gender (1) Female 100% 100% (2) Male 100% 100% Race (4) White 100% 100% 100% (8) Multiracial - Other 100%



c-140

wAhkiAkum

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Wahkiakum

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Wahkiakum




1 1

2

1 1

1.3 1.42.8

1.501234567891011121314

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Wahkiakum


c-142




wAllA wAllA

3746 48 54

69

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 360


4959

36

7390

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 259


40 52 41

6367

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 212


Statewide

80

4124 29 31

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 150


Statewide

40

65 62

4723

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 292


Statewide

2818 22 14 250

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 78


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-143

wAllA wAllA


Adoptions Median Months 29 33 36.5 33 28 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%


Median Months 103 63.5 43 15.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 50% 0% 50%




2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Walla Walla Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 21% 17% 15% 17% 33% (2) 1-2 yrs 18% 19% 15% 18% 19% (3) 3-5 yrs 15% 15% 24% 20% 11% (4) 6-11 yrs 32% 32% 26% 29% 21% (5) 12-17 yrs 14% 17% 20% 14% 16% (6) >17 yrs 2% Gender (1) Female 51% 58% 58% 49% 47% (2) Male 49% 42% 42% 51% 53% Race (1) Native American 1% 2% 3% 4% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 3% 1% (3) Black 1% 3% 4% (4) White 68% 74% 76% 55% 61% (5) Hispanic 27% 21% 17% 26% 9% (6) Multiracial - Native American 3% 6% 2% (7) Multiracial - Black 3% 2% 5% (8) Multiracial - Other 7% (9) Unknown 2% 14%



c-144

wAllA wAllA

3.3%

14.9%

8.9%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Walla Walla

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Walla Walla




41

27

82 8194

6761

3.12.0

6.1 6.17.1

5.0

01234567891011121314

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Walla Walla


c-146




whAtCom

94 89 95 99 94

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 797


96 82 94 88 92

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 614


96 87 91 96 91

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 540


Statewide

52

8168

87

73

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 446


Statewide

16 21 1832

200

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 735


Statewide

4526 29

5060

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 273


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-147

whAtCom


Adoptions Median Months 32.5 29 29.5 27 23 % < 15 Months to Outcome 5% 3% 2% 8% 3%


Median Months 26.5 50 47.5 54 89 % < 15 Months to Outcome 17% 10% 14% 0% 0%

Guardianships Median Months 25 33 31.5 32 17 % < 15 Months to Outcome 33% 14% 0% 0% 25%



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Whatcom Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 24% 24% 26% 24% 29% (2) 1-2 yrs 20% 17% 18% 21% 16% (3) 3-5 yrs 16% 17% 17% 18% 15% (4) 6-11 yrs 22% 23% 18% 21% 27% (5) 12-17 yrs 19% 19% 21% 16% 13% (6) >17 yrs 1% Gender (1) Female 51% 49% 51% 47% 46% (2) Male 49% 51% 49% 53% 54% Race (1) Native American 16% 24% 18% 9% 16% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 1% 1% 1% (3) Black 1% 1% 2% (4) White 57% 53% 52% 59% 62% (5) Hispanic 14% 13% 13% 20% 9% (6) Multiracial - Native American 9% 6% 10% 6% 4% (7) Multiracial - Black 3% 2% 5% 3% 3% (8) Multiracial - Other 1% 2% (9) Unknown 4%



c-148

whAtCom

9.6%

3.7%5.4%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Whatcom

0%1%1%2%2%3%3%4%4%5%5%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Whatcom




150

202

130155

180193

149

3.54.8

3.0 3.64.2 4.5

01234567891011121314

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Whatcom


c-150




whitmAn

61

4353

11

79

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 79


48

29

100

20

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 48


533 33

86

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 55


Statewide

77

27

67

250

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 44


Statewide

2211

2913 19

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 66


Statewide

7560

50

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 24


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-151

whitmAn


Adoptions Median Months 27 22 29 29 41.5 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 20% 0% 0% 0%


Median Months 10 101 % < 15 Months to Outcome 100% 0%

Guardianships Median Months 23.5 38 % < 15 Months to Outcome 0% 0%



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Whitman Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 25% 25% 44% 20% (2) 1-2 yrs 15% 33% 17% 20% (3) 3-5 yrs 25% 17% 25% 17% 40% (4) 6-11 yrs 35% 25% 25% 22% 20% (5) 12-17 yrs 25% 8% 17% Gender (1) Female 45% 33% 33% 56% 60% (2) Male 55% 67% 67% 44% 40% Race (4) White 85% 100% 83% 83% 73% (5) Hispanic 5% 17% 17% (6) Multiracial - Native American 10% (7) Multiracial - Black 27%



c-152

whitmAn

0.0% 0.0%

6.7%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Whitman

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Whitman




15

23 23

12 12

18

15

2.23.4 3.3

1.7 1.62.3

01234567891011121314

0

5

10

15

20

25

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Whitman


c-154




yAkimA

70 73 69 7460

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 1052


80 84 84 83 85

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 723


84 92 91 90 91

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 615


Statewide

65 73 73 75 64

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 483


Statewide

23 24 29 33 34

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 934


Statewide

24

45 4460

32

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 351


Statewide

- - -

Statewide - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

Statewide



c-155

yAkimA








2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Yakima Age at Filing (1) <1 yrs 31% 30% 26% 24% 25% (2) 1-2 yrs 19% 13% 13% 12% 13% (3) 3-5 yrs 15% 18% 22% 20% 19% (4) 6-11 yrs 21% 25% 24% 26% 24% (5) 12-17 yrs 13% 13% 15% 17% 19% Gender (1) Female 52% 49% 50% 53% 47% (2) Male 48% 51% 50% 47% 53% Race (1) Native American 4% 7% 2% 2% 6% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 0% (3) Black 2% 4% 2% 2% 4% (4) White 45% 42% 38% 39% 30% (5) Hispanic 41% 40% 50% 49% 48% (6) Multiracial - Native American 5% 3% 5% 7% 4% (7) Multiracial - Black 2% 3% 2% 1% 5% (8) Multiracial - Other 1% 2% 1% 1% (9) Unknown 1% 2%



c-156

yAkimA

5.3%

13.7%

8.0%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2013 2014 2015

Prior Dependency - Yakima

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2013 2014 2015

Months To Prior Dependency - Yakima




180 188 192 186212 212

265

2.4 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.8

01234567891011121314

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number and Rate Per 1000 of Dependency Filings Per Year - Yakima


Documents

Dependent Children in Washington State: Case Timeliness ...Dependent Children in Washington State: Case Timeliness and Outcomes 2015 Annual Report Produced by the Washington State